1920-03-25

PRIVATE BILLS.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 33, to incorporate International Loan Company.-Mr. Blake.
Bill No. 34, respecting The Montreal and Southern Counties Railway Company.-Mr. Archambault.

[Stage Direction]
Statement re the Naval Forces of Canada laid on the Table in accordance with the provisions of section 47, chapter 43, 9-10, Edward VII.-Hon. Mr. Ballantyne.
[Stage Direction]
Copy of Order in Council P.C. 1961, dated September 29, 1919, covering the appointment of an Advisory Board as prescribed in the Act to amend the Proprietary or Patent Medicine Act, chapter 66, 9-10, George V.- Hon. Mr. Rowell.
Copy of an Order in Council P.C. 2079, dated October 8, 1919, covering the appointment of the Dominion Council of Heal/h.- Hon. Mr. Rowell.
Copy of Order in Council P.C. 328, dated February 11, 1920, accepting the resignation of the Hon. Walter R. Rollo as a member of the Dominion Council of Health and appointing in his place Mr. H. J. Halford, of Hamilton, Ont., Vice-President of the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada.- Hon. Mr. Rowell.


Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Acting Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker with the unanimous consent of the House I beg to move:
That 1,000 additional copies in English and 250 additional copies in French of Bill No. 12, an Act respecting the Election of Members of the House of Commons and the Electoral Franchise, be printed, and that Rule 74 be suspended in connection therewith.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Minister of the Interior) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 35 to amend the Dominion Lands Act.	.
Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING:: Explain please.


Mr. MEIGHEN:: This Bill is not of an important character. It provides for the acquirement of land earned under homestead by those who are refused naturalization only because they are unable to speak the English or the French language. There are one or two other minor provisions.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

Arthur Meighen: That Bill No. 14 to amend the Indian Act be referred to a special committee composed of Messrs. Boys. Charlton. Davidson. Ethier, Lapointe, Lanctdt, Reid (Mackenzie), Stacey and Wilson (Saskatoon), for consideration thereof and all matters pertaining thereto, with power to call for papers, persons and records, to examine witnesses under oath, and to report from time to time, and for that purpose that Rule No. 11 be suspended.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. THOMPSON (Yukon):: What was the total cost to the Government of the exploration expedition sent to the Arctic Ocean with V. Stefansson and party, including the cost of ships, supplies and all amounts for any and all purposes?


Hon. Mr. BALLANTYNE:: 


GRASSHOPPER PLAGUE EXPECTED IN THE WEST.
Mr. GOULD:: 1.	Have any representations, petitions or other correspondence been received by the Government from representatives of various municipalities in South-eastern Saskatchewan, pointing out that from present indications there will in all probability be serious grasshopper plagues in districts overrun last year?
2.	If so, what action has been taken to avoid a repetition of the destruction caused by the said plague?
3.	Will the Department of Agriculture take immediate steps to investigate the advisability of sowing flax in the districts so infested, and if necessary supply flax seed in place of the wheat and oat seed now held?


Hon. Mr. TOLMIE:: 1.	We have had no petitions or other correspondence from representatives of any municipalities in South-eastern Saskatchewan regarding the expected outbreak of locusts in 1920. Our own officers, however, have personally investigated many districts in South-eastern Saskatchewan as well as portions of Manitoba and have found large numbers of eggs of destructive species, which certainly point to the probability of another outbreak occurring in 1920.
2.	In order to meet any threatened outbreak of locusts in the Prairie Provinces in 1920 officers of the Entomological Branch, working in close co-operation with provincial officials, will conduct a vigorous educational campaign so that farmers in infested districts will know exactly what remedial measures to adopt. In this latter connection the importance of widespread community action will be specially emphasized. A special circular dealing with the locust pest is now in press and will soon be available.
3.	The advisability of sowing flax in infested districts is of questionable value. The point has been previously raised that if flax is sown in soil infested areas, the land would be kept clear for a definite period in spring during which time the young hoppers would be starved owing to lack of food. The reply to this of course is that in addition to the fields which had been prepared for crop, all stubble fields, roadways and pastures as
well as unoccupied areas would also .have to be kept free of vegetation. This latter of course is impossible.
A valuable consideration in locust infested districts is to obtain a vigorous growth of the crop before it is attacked and to sow crops that are best able to withstand the attacks of these insects. In this connection rye being of quicker growth and more hardy, would doubtless be the best of all cereals to sow. Flax, on the other hand being sown late and having far less resisting power than cereals would suffer far more seriously were it to he attacked by locusts. Taking into consideration all these circumstances we could not consider the abandoning of cereals in favour of flax to be a wise policy.


MATERIAL IN NEW PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS.
Mr. COPP:: 1.	Was any of the material used in the construction of the new Parliament Buildings imported from the United States?
2.	If so, what different kinds of material was so imported, what amount of each, and at what cost?
3.	How much has been paid contractors for the construction of said buildings under their contract on the percentage basis?
4.	Have said contractors been paid in full? If not, how much is still due them?
5.	How much has been paid the architects on said buildings to date?
6.	To what architects were amounts paid and how much to each?
7.	Have they been paid in full? If not, how much is still due them?


Hon. Mr. REID:: 1.	Yes.
2.	4,859 cu. ft. Indiana limestone, W. Mc-
Millan & Son, Chicago, $2,455.66,- 84,229 cu. ft. Ohio sandstone, G. P. Sherwood & Co., Montreal, $103,649.63;	1,000 brls. Atlas
cement, Bremner, Ltd., Montreal, $5,477; 400 brls. Atlas cement, Barrett Bros., Ottawa, $2,439.36; 11,500 brls. fire brick, Barrett Bros., Ottawa, $576.50; 147,000 ft. conduit, Can. General Electric Co., Ottawa, $27,221.52; 19,025 conduit bushings, Can. General Electric Co., Ottawa, $632.68 ;	4,520 conduit couplings, Can. General Electric Co., Ottawa, $855.89;	36,263 conduit locknuts,
Can. General Electric Co., Ottawa $549.32; 441 conduit elbows, Can. General Electric Co., Ottawa, $1,389.36; 18,000 enamel brick, Dartnell, Ltd., Montreal, $1,949.50; 260 Auth terminal and battery stop, Eclipse Plating & Sales Co., Ottawa, $1,776.68;	645 Auth
connectors, Eclipse Plating & Sales Co., Ottawa, $9,908.86; 260 bronze nipples, Eclipse Plating &. Sales Co., Ottawa, $588;	1
annunciator, Eclipse Plating & Sales Co., Ottawa, $3,571; Miss. electrical mtl.



Northern Electric Co., Ottawa, $5,481,01; ray reflectors, Northern Electric Co., Ottawa, $4,047.64; filters, N. Y. Continental Jewell Filtration Co., Montreal, $3,012; 1,068 Galo stone backing, B. & S. H. Thompson, Ltd., Montreal, $3,425.75; 325 brls. Atlas cement, Webster & Sons, Ltd., Montreal, $1,980; 18,220 Roman fire brick, Webster & Sons, Ltd., Montreal, $1,557.40;
5.000	fire brick, Wright & Co., Hull $270;
30.000	fire brick, Barrett Bros., Ottawa, $1,380; 6,500 feet fibre conduit, Can. General Electric Co., Ottawa, and 20 socket bands, Can. General Electric Co., $763.10; 2,500 feet conduit, Can. General Electric Co., Ottawa, $521.25.
All quarter cut oak for panelling and teakwood for floors was purchased in the United States by various sub-contractors, but do not know what was paid for such material. The majority of the large pipe and fixtures for the heating and plumbing installation and boiler plate for boilers, etc., was purchased in the United States, and there are several other materials which we know must have been purchased in the States as they could not be procured in Canada by the various sub-contractors, but no record of this material or the prices paid for it, as contracts were made with the various sub-contractors fox the different parts of the work erected complete.
By resolution of the Joint Committee held May 12, 1916, it was decided that all materials entering into the construction of the building must be Canadian, wherever possible.
3.	$314,805.26, but no payment made since 17th March, 1919.
4.	Under the terms of the agreement $75,194.74 is still due, as the contractors are to receive eight per cent an cost up to four millions and seven per cent on cost in excess of that amount up to five millions. ^
5.	$255,354.24, but no payment made since 28th April, 1919.
6.	Mr. J. A. Pearson, $214,729.72; Mr. J. O. Marchand, $40,624.52.
7.	(a) No; (b) $19,645.76.


REPAIRS TO HICKEY'S WHARF, P.E.I.
Mr. SINCLAIR (Queens):: 1.	What was the nature of the repairs made to Hickey's Wharf, Prince Edward Island, during 1919?
2.	Were the said repairs made by contract or by day work?
3.	If by day work, who was the foreman, how much was he paid per day and how many days did he work?
4.	What are names of all those who were employed at this work, the number of days worked by each man and the respective amounts paid?

5.	What are the names of those who supplied the material, the amount supplied by each person, the price paid to them for plank per thousand and for stone per load or per yard?
6.	What was the total amount received by each of said persons?


Hon. Mr. REID:: 1.	Renewal of covering of floor stringers on the block situated between the outer two spans.
2.	Day labour.
3.	(a) Patrick McGuirk; (b) $3.50 per day; (c) 16 days.
4.
Patrick McGuirk, Foreman, 16 days
	$ 56.00
Henry A. McGuirk, Labourer, 7 days
	 17.50
Henry A. McGuirk, Carter with team,
3	days	 9 00
Jas E. Smith, 2 days	 5.00
Jos. McGuirk, Labourer,	2	days

	5.00
Jos. McGuirk, Carter with team, 1
day	  3.00
Jas. A. McDonald, Labourer,	2	days 5.00
Jas. A. McDonald, Carter with team,
1 day	 3.00
Geo. Brogan, 3 days	 7.50
F. Cummiskey, Labourer,	1	day.. ..	2.50
F. Cummiskey, Carter with team, \
day.. .. ,	 1-75
Eug. Callaghan, Carter with team, 2 days	 6.00
121.25
5 and 6.
L. M. Poole & Co., 3,014 ft. hemlock
plank at $35	 105.49
Henry A. McGuirk, 630 ft. spruce at
$16	 10.08
Jos. McGuirk, 7 yds. stone at $1.20
c.y	 8-40
Norman McDonald, 6 yds. stone at
$1.20 c.y	 7.20
Smith Bros,	1 keg spikes	 6.00
Lusious Kelly, 1J yds. stone at $1.20 c.v	 1.80
, $260.22 DUTY ON STEEL PLATES.


Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:: What is the duty on steel plates for shipbuilding imported (a) from the United States, and (b) from England?


Hon. Mr. BURRELL:: Iron and steel
plates for wooden, iron, steel or composite ships and vessels are free of duty and exempt from -war tax, under Tariff Item 470, irrespective of country from which imported.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN.
Mr. CLARK (Red Deer):: How many houses have been commenced, and how many flninshed, under the legislation of a year ago?


ELECTION IN ST. JAMES, MONTREAL.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. PIERRE FRANCOIS CASGRAIN (Charlevoix-Montmorency):: Before the
Orders of the Day are called, Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the Government if there is any truth in a statement published last night in La Patrie, to the effect that the election in St. James Division, Montreal, may be delayed owing to certain difficulties in getting the voters' list ready at the proper time?


Rt. Hon. C. J. DOHERTY (Minister of Justice):: I saw the article in La Patrie to which the hon. gentleman refers, and have caused inquiry to be made as to what foundation there is in fact for the statements it contains, and that is all I can say at the present moment. I am not aware whether the statements are accurate or not, and in the absence of definite information in the matter it is impossible for me to form an opinion as to what effect might be on the election if those statements were true.


NAVAL POLICY OF THE GOVERNMENT.
Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: [DOT] Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day are called I desire to make a statement on the Government's policy in regard to naval affairs:
The Government has had under consideration for some time the question of the naval defence of Canada and the suggestion of Admiral Viscount Jellicoe in reference thereto.
In view of Canada's heavy financial commitments and of the fact that Great Britain has not as. yet decided on her permanent naval policy, and of the approaching Imperial Conference at which the question of naval defence of the Empire will come up for discussion between the Home 'Government and the Overseas Dominions, it has been decided to defer in the meantime action in regard to the adoption of a permanent naval policy for Canada.
The Government has decided to carry on the Canadian Naval Service along pre-war lines and has accepted the offer of Great Britain of one light cruiser and two torpedo boat destroyers to take the place of the pre-45i
sent obsolete and useless training ship's, the Niobe and Rainbow.
The Minister of Naval Service, in order to be free to thoroughly reorganize and place the present service on an economical and efficient basis, has issued orders for the demobilization of all officers and naval ratings and for the discontinuance of civilian help at headquarters and at the Naval Dockyards in Esquimalt and Halifax. The Canadian officers who are in the Imperial fleet and who are now being paid by the Canadian Government will be recalled and placed on duty with the Canadian Naval Service. The Naval College will also be continued. [DOT] After reorganization has been completed, only those officers and other ratings and civilians will be taken on who are absolutely necessary and possess the qualifications desired.
In addition to this announcement, Mr. Speaker, I beg to inform the House that the Director of Naval Service, Admiral Sir Charles Kingsmill, has retired. He has been Director of Naval Service since the inception of the Canadian Navy in 1910, and he has performed his duties in a most satisfactory manner. I therefore wish to tender him now, on the floor of this House, my thanks as Minister of Naval Service, as well as the thanks of the Canadian Government. An officer of a junior rank will shortly be appointed.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that all hon. gentlemen on this side of the House will join with the minister in expressing our thanks to Admiral Kingsmill for (he manner in which he has discharged his duties as Director of the Canadian Naval Service. May I ask the minister whether I was right in understanding him to say at the beginning of his remarks that the Government at the present time has no naval policy? I took that interpretation from his utterance. Possibly he used the words "permanent naval policy." But does that give us to understand that the Government has no permanent naval policy?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Mr. Speaker,
I stated the position of the Government in very clear and precise terms. I shall be glad indeed to send across the floor of the House to the leader of the Opposition a typewritten copy of precisely what I did say.


Mr. E. B. DEVLIN:: I should like to ask the minister whether, before a permanent naval policy is entered upon, the Government will consult the electors of Canada.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Mr. Speaker, 1 have nothing to add to what I have already stated on behalf of the Government.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is rather important that the position should be made perfectly clear. I read from the statement which the minister has been kind enough to submit to me the following words:
In view of Canada's heavy financial commitments and of the fact that Britain has not as yet decided on her permanent naval policy, and of the approaching Imperial Conference at which the question of naval defence of the Empire will come up for discussion between the Home Government and the Overseas Dominions, it has been decided to jJefer in the meantime action in regard to the adoption of a permanent naval policy for Canada.
If these words mean anything they mean that at the present time the Government has no policy and proposes-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Well, let me repeat the words: "It has been decided to defer in the meantime"-that is, until this conference is held in the summer or whenever it is the intention to hold it. It has been decided, until that time, to defer action in regard to the adoption of a permanent naval policy for Canada. Surely this must mean that at the present time there is no permanent policy and that the Government intends to wait until after some Imperial conference has been held. In view of this fact, I think that the question asked by my hon. friend (Mr. Devlin) a moment ago is quite pertinent. 'I think that this House has a right to know whether the Government intends to consult Parliament on the policy which it purposes to adopt, also whether the Government intends to make any intimation to the House as to what policy it proposes to lay before the Imperial Conference for consideration.


Michael Clark: I may say that 1 endorse, so far as I can catch them, some of the remarks of my hon. friend the leader of the Opposition. I do not know how far I am in order in saying anything upon the statement which has been made to the House by the minister, but if I am out of order the minister was equally so. I think I am clear on that point.


Mr. SPEAKER:: It is customary for ministerial announcements to be made upon the Orders of the Day. The hon. member himself will recall many instances in which such was done. That being so, it does not, however, open the subject for general dis-

cussion. But in view of the undoubted importance of the subject, it would be quite competent for the hon. member to put a question to the minister, although he may not enter into a discussion.


Michael Clark: The announcement we have heard is one of the most extraordinary statements that have ever been presented to Parliament. As the leader of the Opposition has said, it avows that the Government have no policy-[DOT]


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, no.


Michael Clark: -no permanent policy; and it goes on to say at the end of the statement, that nevertheless they have a policy which has been intimated to the British Admiralty. They have accepted the ships which have been offered by the British Admiralty in the place of others which are described as "useless and obsolete." As I may not discuss the subject, I shall put my views in the form of a question, and I would ask the Minister of Naval Service how long he thinks it will be before the ships he has now got will be useless and obsolete.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: In view of the importance of the subject and of the fact that it may not be debated, I should also like to ask a question or two of the minister. Have the Government been instructed in any way or informed by the Home authorities of the advisability of the action which the Government is now about to take?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: The Government
and the Parliament of Canada decide all issues of that character on their own re sponsibility.


Mr. ERNEST LAPOINTE:: But they do not decide anything now.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Why, then, is the minister waiting for the Imperial Conference?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Orders of the Day.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: I have not finished, Mr. Speaker, I have another question.


Rt. Hon. Sir GEORGE POSTER:: The minister has made a statement which is before the House, and I think it would be advisable, seeing the different renderings which have been given it so far, that members should have the answer before them and see exactly what it is, so that they may not be led into making mistakes as to its iiderpvetation. The Government has made its statement in reference to the policy; it

is there and speaks for itself. At the opportune time the Government is quite ready to tal e up the question and debate it with hon. gentlemen on the other side.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: I want to how right away to the suggestion of my right hon. friend, inasmuch as that suggestion helps out the Government; hut we are representing the people here, and we intend to have the people's rights respected.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order. The rule is well established in this House: That there can be no debate on this subject at the present stage because there is nothing before the House. I am sure the House will agree with me that I have been quite lenient in not preventing the putting of questions. I hope there will be no further attempt at debate under the disguise of an interrogation.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: This is the question I would like to ask the minister: " Did the Prime Minister, upon a certain occasion in or near the city of Ottawa, make the statement that the Government would follow the advice of the Admiralty in forming a naval policy for Canada?" I speak of the occasion when Lord Jellicoe made a statement of the needs-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order, order.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: It is perfectly in order; I am giving the circumstances to remind the minister.


Mr. BUREAU:: Just to refresh his
memory.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: I am simply refreshing the memory of the Government.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I submit that that is a proper question for the hon. member to place upon the Order Paper.


Ernest Lapointe: The policy is to have no policy.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order.


MILITARY CANTEEN PROFITS.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Joseph Archambault: Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to see the hon. the Overseas Minister of Militia back in his seat, he having returned safe and sound from the exterior belt of the war, where he had remained for five years.
Last year, I put two questions, the one of which had reference to the profits of the
military canteens of the Canadian Expeditionary Forces, and the other dealt about the damages relating to the Kimmel Camp riots.
The hon. member for Hamilton, who was then Minister of Militia, told me that he would cable the Overseas Minister for an answer. I do not know whether the answer has arrived, but as I do not see the Overseas Minister in his seat, I would like the. hon. member to answer those questions.


The Right Hon.   S@: I wish to say, in answer to my hon. friend the member for Chambly-Vercheres, that I got some information with respect to the three questions which he put the other day: As for the Siberian Force, all the documents are ready to be brought down, and as far as the Sainted Anne-de-Bellevue military hospital is concerned, the papers are under preparation and will be brought down within a few days. I may say, with reference to the Grand Trunk shareholders' list, that information must be obtained from London; it is being sought just at present, and is expected from day to day.


Joseph Archambault: Mr. Speaker, I have congratulated the acting prime minister yesterday on the progress he had made in the French language. May he allow me to say, however, that he has not quite understood the remarks which I have just submitted. His answer has reference to three questions which I have put yesterday or the day before. When I rose, this afternoon, I put questions quite different from those, and if my hon. friend will allow me, I shall now put them in English.
I stated in French that I was very glad to see the hon. the Overseas Minister of Militia (Sir Edward Kemp) back in his seat. Last year I put some questions to the hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Mew-burn), who was then Minister of Militia, with reference to the profits of the military canteens of the Canadian Expeditionary Forces and also in relation to the damages at Camp Kimmel. My hon. friend answered me that he was going to cable overseas and get the information. As the cable was probably sent, as I have no answer ydt, and as the Overseas Minister of Militia is in his seat now, I would like him to answer this question.


Sir EDWARD KEMP (Overseas Minister oif Militia):: Replying to my hon. friend (Mr. Archamfoault), !l may say that there is a question on the Order Paper which covers the information that he wants. The ques-

tion was called to-day, but the answer is not ready, lit will be ready at the next sitting of the House. The question is so wide that it covers not only the information that my hon. friend desires', tout other information dealing with the same subject. I think he coupled with the statement he made the expression of a desire for certain information regarding some canteen fund that has reference to Canada. Ilf so, that information would not be in the answer; it will have to be added by the Department of Militia and Defence.


RUMOURED CLOSING OF DISTRICT PENSION OFFICES.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. C. G. POWER (Quebec South):: I should like to direct the attention of the Government to a rumour which has been widely prevalent to the effect that certain district offices of the Board of Pension iCom-missioners have recently been closed and that others are about to be closed within the next few days, notably, Regina, Victoria, Charlottetown, Sydney, 'Queibec, North Bay, and seven or eight others. Is the Government aware that by closing these district offices they wrill seriously inconvenience-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The hon. member should be content with putting his question.


Hon. Mr. ROWELL:: I will make inquiries and ascertain whether there is any foundation for the rumour. Undoubtedly the Board of Pension Commissioners wish to keep the expenses of administration within as reasonable limits as possible consistent with giving due care to the pensioners.


DOMINION FRANCHISE ACT.
[Stage Direction]
Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Militia and Acting Solicitor General) moved the second reading of Bill No. 12, respecting the election of members of the. House of Commons and the Electoral Franchise. He said: In moving the second reading of this Bill may I be permitted to say at the outset that it is somewhat doubtful at the present moment whether we have any valid and subsisting law of this Parliament under which the will of the electors of Canada might he recorded, or otherwise made known at the polls, through the medium of a general election, if at any time a dissolution of Parlia-

ment were to take place by law, or if perchance for any other reason it might be deemed appropriate and expedient to dissolve the House. As the House is aware there is a special Act in force at the present time which makes provision both for the franchise and for the conduct of an election, but that special Act is by its own terms expressly limited in its application to byelections. It is known as the Dominion By-Elections Act, and under the terms of that special Act certain by-elections are now being held in Canada. That Act, however, has no application whatever to the case of a general election. Consequently if a dissolution of Parliament should take place- either by the expiration of the time limited under the British North America Act, or if for any other reason the Government should see fit at	any time to tender advice to His Excellency to the end that- Parliament should be earlier dissolved-we might find ourselves in rather an awkward predicament. We certainly should find ourselves in rather an uncertain ' situation as to whether we had at this time in Canada any adequate and subsisting law either to fix the franchise or to govern the conduct of a general election. To avoid that uncertainty and that unsatisfactory condition of the law in the future, and to render definite and certain what might otherwise be uncertain, this Bill is brought before the House at the present time.
When I mention the matter of doubt in regard to the present status of our election laws, may I be permitted to explain that any doubt which may exist upon the subject, exists by reason of certain contingencies and the happening of certain events upon which certain important portions of our legislation, which were passed under rather extraordinary conditions, were made dependent. The Dominion Elections Act of 1908, with amendments passed from time to time, continued in force down to the year 1917. During the year 1917 somewhat radical amendments were introduced into the law-
Ernest Lapointe: Hear, hear.


Hugh Guthrie: tion, revision and final completion of voters' lists in a territory so vast and scattered as that contained in this broad country, in order to ensure the legal right to vote with the least possible degree of inconvenience to the voter, one is met with a situation of great complexity and great magnitude; and, furthermore, in endeavouring to formulate from the broadest principle down to the minutest detail a set of rules and regulations for the safe, sure and just conduct of a general election under such diverse circumstances for a population unevenly distributed over such a vast territory, at some points dense and at other points scattered, one is brought to a full realization of the imperfection of all human productions, be the effort of the individual or of the Government to achieve perfection ever so great and ever so honest.
This Bill is naturally bulky. It is designed, as I have said, to have universal operation without, or almost without, any special limitations or exceptions. When one considers the vastness of the proposal, the conclusion is rather forced upon one that while standards .may be established and principles adopted, to set forth within the four corners of a measure the general scope , and application of the proposal as settled and intended as a pronouncement of Government policy, yet in a matter of such great national importance and complexity and of such vital consequence, directly or indirectly, to the rights, the interests, the welfare and the convenience of the whole community,-under such circumstances the Government has a right to expect that the industry, the intelligence, and the most mature judgment of every hon. member shall be placed at its disposal in the consideration of this measure, so that, when we have reached the end of our labours, we may be able to present to the electors an election law which is the product of the combined experience and intelligence of every section of the House, and which hereafter may prove to be a model of its kind in fairness and simplicity.
It is in this spirit, Mr. Speaker, that the Government brings this Bill forward on motion for the second reading. I realize that the Bill as drafted, while it has been considered and revised, and reconsidered and again revised, and while in its present form it expresses the policy of the Government in regard to the matters set forth therein, yet in one respect I can assure the House that it bears no resemblance to the law of the Medes and Persians. The Government will not hesitate to carefully consider and, if necessary, adopt any amend-

ment that may be offered from any quarter of the House which in the opinion of the House will render the Bill more safe, more sure and more convenient in its operation than it may be in its present form.
Now, Mr. Speaker, after this general statement as to the present position of our election law and as to the policy and attitude of the Government in regard to this Bill, may I be permitted to touch very briefly upon what one might call the history of our franchise legislation?
I desire to mention this matter chiefly on account of a paragraph which I read the other day in a Liberal newspaper, to the effect that Parliament and the country would insist upon the principle of the adoption of provincial franchises and provincial lists; and because I noticed upon the opening day of this session that my hon. friend the leader of the Opposition (iMr. Mackenzie King) dropped rather a plain intimation in the course of his remarks to the effect that the Opposition would expect the Government " to adopt provincial voters' lists in accordance with the spirit of our constitution."
Well, Mr. Speaker, perhaps at this distance of time, after we have had over half a century of experience under the British North America Act,-which is the governing Act in regard both to Dominion and Provincial legislation,-it might be considered somewhat of a waste of time to attempt to justify the right of this Parliament to pass legislation for the creation of voters' lists and for the conduct of elections which pertain exclusively to the election of members to this Parliament. We all know that during the early years after Confederation a rather heated discussion was waged throughout Canada in regard to that very question.
It was very strongly and very ably urged in the early days that as Canada had been federated upon the theory and principle of a pure federation, as it was called, as opposed to a legislative union, the right was inherent in the provinces to fix the franchise and establish the voters' lists which should be used in the election of their representatives to the Federal Parliament. That question never really came before Parliament until that interesting period in our history about the year 1885, when the Conservative Administration, under the leadership of the late Sir John A. Macdonald, introduced into this House a Franchise Act based entirely upon the constitutional right of this Parliament to legislate in respect to the franchise, to voters' lists, and to rules

of elections. A contest then took place on the floor of this House, one of the mightiest debates that ever took place in the political history of Canada. If one turns back the pages of Hansard, Tefers to the proceedings of Parliament thirty-five years ago, and reads the arguments that were used and the speeches that were delivered pro and con in regard to that question, one is bound to conclude, having regard to the men who took part in that great debate, that there must have been "giants in the world in those days." It was an able debate, sometimes bitter and acrimonious, sometimes even turbulent. But comparing that debate with our debates of the present day, one is bound to say that it was conducted upon a very high plane, and that that characteristic was very well sustained throughout.
Well, what was the .argument? The argument of the Hon. Edward Blake, then leader of the Liberal Opposition, and undoubtedly one of the greatest lawyers that this country has ever produced, was briefly this:	Among provinces joined together upon a federal principle, on a federal theory, it is absolutely necessary in order to carry out the true theory of federation, that each province should alone be asked in what manner it desired to send its own delegates or representatives to the Federal House. Mr. Blake argued that it was not for Ontario to say in what manner the representatives of the province of Quebec should be sent to this Parliament; that it was not 'the business of representatives from the province of Quebec to say by what method the representatives from Nova .Scotia should be elected. Mr. Blake argued that the most outstanding example of the principle which he advocated was to be found in United States-I think he called it the most glorious and the most outstanding example of the federal principle. He demonstrated to this House that every State in the United States had the right to determine its own franchise and to make and revise its own voters' lists used in the election of members of Congress. That certainly was then and is now the right of every State in the United States. But I think there is an inclination on the part Otf many people who make a comparison, between the constitution of this country and that of the United States to overlook this important fact:	That while the United
States was founded upon the federal principle, and the federation of the Canadian provinces was likewise founded on the federal principle, but upon principles in one material respect very different from the principles adopted in the United States. In 1776 the States which subsequently formed the United States sent their representatives to Philadelphia and there they laid down certain principles. One principle which they laid down was that each State should surrender a certain part of its sovereign power to the federal authority, that sovereign power to be exercised by the federal authority for the benefit of all the States which should form the Union. It was not .so in the case of the formation of the Canadian federation. When the delegates of the various provinces assembled in the conference which led to Confederation, they worked out their agreement upon the'principle that the federal -or central government should have all legislative power whioh -should thereafter pertain to the Dominion as a whole, and that only the residue (what was left), and only that which was of a local and private or provincial nature, should belong to the provinces. Now, the Tesult of these two modes has been this: In the United States the national .Government has jurisdiction only over those matters which were expressly handed [DOT]over to it 'by the States themselves; all .other legislative power and authority remains with the State Governments. But in Canada the provinces have jurisdiction only in respect of those particular matters which were expressly handed over to them by our (Confederation Act, the Dominion having exclusive jurisdiction -in regard to all -other -matters. That is a very opposite result as between the two countries, but it is arrived ,at by a logical process of reasoning, having regard to the principles which guided our respective forefathers when they came to their original agreement.
There is a very simple means of testing the question whether this Parliament or the provincial legislatures have jurisdiction in regard to the franchise so far as respects the election of members to this House. Under the scheme which was adopted when the British North America Act was passed there is one section which is well known to all lawyers, section 92. Under that section are gathered together all the 4 p.m. subjects upon which the provinces have the exclusive right to legislate. There are only sixteen of them, sixteen subparagraphs, and with regard to those sixteen subjects the legislatures of our provinces have -exclusive rights to legislate; apart from those sixteen there are only one or two other subjects in which

there can be any possible conflict of jurisdiction-that is, in regard to education, dealt with by section 93, and the subjects of agriculture and immigration, dealt with by section 95,-I have said that there is a simple way of applying a test in these matters. If in section 02, among the sixteen subjects therein mentioned, you find a particular subject regarding which you are making inquiry, broadly speaking, you will know at once it is a matter of provincial jurisdiction. But if the subject concerning which you make inquiry is omitted from among the sixteen subjects enumerated in that section, you may take it as absolute that the provinces have no jurisdiction in regard to it. Now, I challenge any one to find in section 92 of the British North America Act, after going over it paragraph by paragraph, a hint, a suggestion,, an insinuation in respect to a Dominion franchise, a Dominion election, Dominion voters' lists, or anything of that kind. So as a result of that simple test you are forced to the conclusion that this Parliament has complete and absolute jurisdiction on that subject..
But the matter does not rest there, by any means. When Parliament first met after Confederation, in July, 1867, some means had to be devised whereby elections could be held. The British North America Act did not provide the means, except for the first meeting of Parliament, The British North America Act was more a declaration of principle than anything else. It did not attempt to go into details. It left much of the detailed matter to be worked out by subsequent legislation, and it left a good deal of it likewise to be decided by the appellate courts of the British Empire. But section 41 did provide that until this Parliament should otherwise declare, the provincial franchises and the provincial lists should be used and the provincial election methods adopted. But the first words of section 41, I think, tell the whole story in regard to jurisdiction.
Section 41-II will not read the unnecessary portions-reads as follows:
Until the Parliament of Canada otherwise provides, all laws in force in the several provinces at the union relative to the following matters or any of them, namely: the qualifications and disqualifications of persons to he elected or to sit or vote as members of the House of Assembly or Legislative Assembly in the several provinces, the voters at elections of such members
* shall respectively
apply to elections of members to serve in the House of Commons for the same several provinces.
That settled the question for the first election to this House, and that section

commences with these words "Until the Parliament of Canada otherwise provides." That is almost an express enactment that this Parliament has the jurisdiction. Certainly the only implication from that language is that we have that jurisdiction, and that jurisdiction is the jurisdiction which was maintained in the Act which was presented to this House in 1885. I must say that the late Mr. Blake made a very forceful argument in support of his contention on that occasion; but Mr. Blake had in support of his argument the special conditions which actually existed in Canada at that time. He was able to point to the situation which had developed in the seven provinces which at that time made up Confederation in this country. He was able to tell Parliament that there was the greatest diversity in those provinces in regard to the franchise; that was true. Why, he said, in the most westerly province of Confederation, British Columbia, they have manhood franchise, while every other province has a property qualification, and in no two of those provinces is the qualification the same. Consequently, he said, there is the greatest diversity, and only confusion and trouble will ensue if you adopt a dual system. I am satisfied, however, that if Mr. Blake's life had been spared to this period of time, if he had been able to watch the development that has taken place in regard to this matter in the provinces of Canada, he would have been the first to admit that the foundation of his argument had been taken away.
What have we to-day? We have nine provinces in the Dominion, and in six of those provinces we have practically a single franchise-manhood and womanhood suffrage. In only three provinces is there any distinction made, and in those three, Quebec, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, I think there is still a slight property qualification, but with all due deference to those provinces I submit that the property qualification where it exists is so slight as to be absoltuely insignificant. There would he very little difference between a provincial list in Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, based upon manhood franchise, and a list in the same provinces prepared having regard to the property qualifications which exist in those provinces to-day. So for practical purposes one may well say that throughout the length and breadth of Canada there is an established franchise, certainly an approximate franchise, which has uniform

operation throughout the nine provinces. There is no diversity practically, and there would be no difficulty now in a uniform system. The danger of confusion has been removed, and that was the great danger that Mr. Blake foresaw. He did not on that occasion direct his argument very strongly towards voters' lists. He had very little to say about them. What he pointed out,, and what the Liberal party pointed out in 1885, as any one can see by reading the debates, was that the Conservative Administration of that day was asking the House to adopt a measure which, in the opinion of the Liberal party, was nothing short of a political iniquity on account of the partisanship contained in its sections. The chief fight on behalf of the Liberal party was against the proposal to establish in this country a system of revising barristers, with power both to prepare and to revise the lists, and without any provision in the Bill for the right of appeal from the revising barrister. Every Liberal in the House pointed out the iniquity of such a proposal as that, and after a long and hard fight modifications were made, and the right of appeal was granted. That removed some of the difficulties, but as a matter of fact the question of provincial voters' lists per se hardly arose during the debate. The fight was on the method which the Bill proposed under which voters' lists should be prepared and revised by men who might be absolutely partisan, creatures of the Government of the day, with no right of appeal being given against them. Subsequently that proposal was very much modified, and the Bill passed the House. It was a most interesting debate, and 'I would commend it to the attention of every man in this House even at this late day. It was a fine argument and a rare fight. But I must confess that one cannot read these old pages of Hansard without some tinge of regret, some tinge even of sorrow. When you see in the list of those who participated in that debate the names of Macdonald, Laurier, Blake, Langevin, Mackenzie, Chapleau, Davies, Cartwright, Edgar, Weldon, White	and	Foster, onerecalls with a	feeling of	sorrow
that all the great parliamentarians of that day have passed to another sphere save two, one of whom now occupies the highest judicial position in this country, the other being my right hon. friend the Acting Prime Minister of this country (Sir George Foster). I am sure it is a matter of the greatest gratification and pride to us all to find him here
at this distance of time, after a career of well nigh forty years in this Parliament, and over half that time, I believe, as a member of the Government. We have him with us to-day, rich in vigour of body and mind, Ms intellect, not dulled, but rather sharpened by the passage of years, his temper, I think, on the whole improved, his vision increased, and bis parliamentary experience far above that of any other member of this House. I am sure, Mr. Speaker, I voice the unanimous wish of all the members of this House when, I say that we hope he will be able for many, many years to say to himself,
For men may come and men may go,
But I go on forever.
The Act of 1885 went into operation despite the protests of the Liberal party, and it continued to be the law of this country for the next thirteen years. Speaking as one who had -some -actual experience under the operation of that Act, I did not like it. It was burdensome, troublesome, icostly, -and above all, dilatory. No one, I think, realized these features of that legislation more keenly than the Conservative party who passed it. The Act, before it was repealed, had not a friend in the country. Everybody wanted it changed. What I personally most complained of in regard to that law was that it was so dilatory that we never bad an up-to-date voters' list during its whole operation. In the general election of 1891 we had to vote upon lists certified three years before election day.
In the election of 1896 the lists were over two years old. The thing was so expensive that you could not ask to have the list revised every year; the treasury would not stand it. I think the late Sir John Thompson realized the difficulty in 1894 when he was Prime Minister, for in that year he introduced a new Bill into the House. It only got to the second reading, having never passed the House. But in introducing the Bill Sir John Thompson was pretty guarded in his language. If I may be permitted to quote from his speech, he said:
The number of differences which existed between the provincial franchises and the Dominion franchise as established by our own Act are so few as not to be worth the contest and expense which are involved in keeping them up, and the adoption of a general system which will apply to the local and Dominion legislatures has recommendations as regards simplicity and facilities for economy which cannot exist under a dual system which we have been keeping up for the past few years.
Later on in the same speech he said:
The great principle which underlay the Franchise Act of 1885 was controlled by this

Parliament over matters connected with the franchise.
And further on in the same speech:
We adhere to the principle that this House, and the electors who return members to this House, ought not to he under the control, as regards the exercise of their franchise, of the officers of any other Government or Legislature whatever in the country.
So that, from these statements taken from the speech of Sir John Thompson in this House when he introduced a new measure in 1894, we may conclude, I think, that he had seen and appreciated the development, that had been going on in Canada and perceived that a uniform system was the correct system, and that there was not much use in holding out on the old principles. He was prepared to surrender one of them at least. However, the Act did not go through, and until 1898 we had no other franchise Act in this country, but the Act of 1885.
We all know that the Liberal party was in power in 1908, when they brought in a Franchise Bill and declared it to be founded on the principle they had so long advocated in this House and in the country, namely, the true federal theory or principle. They made many declarations to that effect, but I purpose to show that in the course of time they practically abandoned that theory. I happened to be a member of that party on one occasion during the session of 1908, when we absolutely negatived such a principle. When Alexander Mackenzie came into power he passed a Franchise Act in 1874, and it was the first Franchise Act passed after Confederation, he absolutely adopted the provincial franchise, without any qualifications or any conditions. He absolutely adopted the provincial voters' lists, and likewise without qualifications or exceptions. When the Laurier administration passed their first Franchise Act in 1898, if my memory serves me rightly in regard to its sections, it said by section 5: "We will adopt the provincial voters' lists''; and by sections 6, 7, and 8, " We will vary them and make certain voters' lists to suit ourselves." Then by subsequent sections it was decided to hand over these lists when made to the control of an officer of this Government'. We said by that Act: " Here they will stay, and here they will be printed, and we will control them." That was not the Mcivenzie Act of 1874 by any manner of means. Then by section 10 it was decided to adopt the provincial franchise, but by section 11 the Government said: "We will not adopt the provincial disqualifications." Practically they adopted it in so far as it suited them, and where it did not suit them 
they did not adopt it. However, I maintain that they had the absolute constitutional right to do so if they saw fit. This Parliament was not bound by any provincial Franchise Act and there was no custom in this country at that time that made it proper that we should accept or adopt provincial franchises. Certainly the Liberal Government did not adopt them. We passed amendment after amendment to the Act of 1898, but the decisive reasons for amendment arose in 1908. Mr. Speaker, I may be giving a little inside history, but I do not suppose it will hurt any one. I am not doing this by way of recrimination, nor yet by way of exultation, but solely for the purpose of justifying what the Liberal party did and what I supported them in doing in 1908. You remember, Sir, that there was a time when every provincial legislature in this country was controlled by a Liberal government; that was when the Act of 1898 was passed. From one end of the country to the other we had provincial Liberal governments. But there was a time when these administrations began to disappear one by one. Now, the election of 1900 was carried by the Liberal Government under the Election Act of 1898 practically unamended. Prior to 1904 we had only very slight amendments. But by 1904 one Richard McBride got into power in British Columbia, and a man named Roblin in Manitoba; and in January of 1905 one Sir James Whitney, obtained the reins of government in Ontario. That created rather an awkward situation at Ottawa. It made us look around to see what we could do. We had the constitutional right to legislate in regard to elections, and we were prepared to exercise it. We could survey the scene from the Atlantic to the Pacific to see where legislation or amendment was necessary. Looking out upon the province of Alberta, we did not foresee much difficulty. There lived in the land of Alberta a man named Sifton. I do not know whether the House has heard of this name, but I think the Liberal administration at Ottawa had every confidence that so long as a man by that name had control of the Government of Alberta no iniquity would be permitted in the voters' lists of that province.


Mr. W. H. WHITE:: If the minister will pardon me I should like to correct him. No man named Sifton had charge of the Government of Alberta at the time of which he speaks.


Hugh Guthrie: I should have said Rutherford, and Sifton subsequently. Well,

the Administration had no fears so long as they knew that a man by the name of Rutherford controlled affairs there. Then, when we looked at the adjoining province of Saskatchewan, every one knew there was there a man named Jim Calder. I do not know whether the House knows the man or not, but the Liberal administration of that day in Ottawa had every confidence that so long as Jim Calder had anything to do with the Government of Saskatchewan the people of Saskatchewan would have a fair and square deal in election matters. As regards Quebec, you could go down there by day or night and find a perfectly satisfactory situation prevailing; all through the silent watches of the night the word would come back: "All's Well." We knew that the people of Quebec would be assured of a fair and honest voters' list. Little difficulty arose in New Brunswick, because, although there was in that province an administration known as the Hazen Government, that government wisely did not tamper with the old Liberal voters' list, and we were assured by men in the House-well-known men they were-that the situation was satisfactory in New Brunswick. In Nova Scotia we were doubly assured. The grand old Prime Minister there, the veteran who still occupies the distinguished position he has so long held-God bless him, and may he long be there-was in power in those days, and we knew that his name was a guarantee of fair dealing in regard to the voters' list in that part of the country. It did not matter so much in Prince Edward Island, because they had no provision for voters' lists ini that province. The awkward places were British Columbia, Manitoba and Ontario, and the most awkward thing of the whole situation. was what we considered to be an act of supreme impudence on the part of the Tory Prime Ministers of those three provinces, when they undertook to change the old standard voters' lists of the Liberal governments. That created a situation down here in Ottawa. It was bound to do so. We had to think the matter out and we began to think that the best way to meet it was by boldly declaring that we had the power to regulate the franchise in this country, that it was not a provincial matter at all, that it was a Dominion matter. I maintained that then and I maintain it now.
In June 1908 a Bill to amend the Election Act came before Parliament. I am not so familiar with what transpired in regard to British Columbia or Manitoba as I am in regard to Ontario. I know that it was
suggested that these Acts of the McBride Administration and of the Roblin Administration were most iniquitous. I fancy they were as bad as they could be made. That was the excuse we offered for interference with their provincial voter's lists.
I think we had found cases of overlapping, and that the Dominion constituencies and the provincial constituencies did not exactly conform and for that reason that there was necessity for our interference. In Ontario a very marked situation arose. The Government of Sir James Whitney came into power in Ontario in the spring of 1905. It will be remembered that for thirty-five years before that we had had in Ontario a Liberal Administration, Liberal voters' lists, and Liberal election laws had prevailed. For some reason best known to Sir James Whitney and his Government, they undertook to change that system and in 1908 they passed an Act which made provision for voters' lists in the unorganized districts of Ontario-that is where there were no municipal organizations, that northern tier in Ontario that used to send six members to this House constituting what we called New Ontario.
I have no doubt that the proposal of Sir James Whitney was a very bad one. It did not suit the Government in power in Canada at that time. It was a very deliberate thing, I admit, but the Government of that day, with my support, passed an Act to say that for certain portions of these three provinces we would set aside the provincial lists and make lists for ourselves. There are men in this House like myself who supported the Government on that Bill and I am prepared to justify that vote, which I gave on principle, on the same principle that obtains now, and that is, that the Parliament of Canada has the full right to make its own franchise.
It is true that the hon. the leader of the Oposition (Mr. King) did not have a seat in this House in the spring of 1908. It may be that he was not then fighting in the front ranks but I will guarantee that by reason of his intimate knowledge of' political matters at that time he had a position for himself on the headquarters staff. He knew what was going on, his party knew what was going on and it ill becomes a man who knows the situation which existed in 1908 and the law which we passed, and passed on principle I maintain, to say now, on the first day of the assembling of this session that the House will expect the Government to carry out


Mr. CANNON:: There are no property
qualifications in Quebec.


Hugh Guthrie: None in Quebec? Then the remark applies to the provinces of Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island; I thought property qualifications were required in Quebec too. But the property qualifications in those two provinces, excluding Quebec, are so minor and so insignificant as to amount to practically nothing. They have practically manhood franchise in Nova Scotia and in Prince Edward Island, and I think if we adopt it throughout the whole length and breadth of the country we will have both a uniform and a satisfactory franchise.
There is one other question which I should mention. It will be remembered that about a year ago this Parliament adopted the principle of woman suffrage. We did not adopt it in regard to this province, that province or the other province, but we made it as a law of this Parliament, apply to every province in Canada. I do not think objection was taken at the time to our constitutional right to do so. We did it and I think if objection was taken the House certainly never was divided on the principle. Within my recollection it was practically the unanimous wish of Parliament that that law should be passed though I remember some individuals in the House at the time did offer objections. Well, by the present Bill we will impose upon Quebec and Prince Edward Island womanhood suffrage. I have heard it said that that is very much against the will of the people in these two provinces. But after all isn't it merely an opportunity that we are giving them. There is no compulsion in the way of voting under this Bill. It has been suggested that there should be a compulsory voting clause incorporated, but by this Bill we are not imposing any duty upon the people of the province to do anything: We are not asking them to refrain from doing anything, we are not penalizing them if they do not do anything; all we say to the provinces of Quebec and Prince Edward Island, where womanhood suffrage has not been adopted in provincial matters, is " Here is the opportunity. If you see fit to avail yourselves of it well and good. Your women have a right to vote, but there is no compulsion in the matter, it is merely

an invitation to take it or reject it as you see fit." The law was passed by Parliament to apply to every province. More than that we amended the law of this country to provide that women should sit in the Dominion Parliament. A woman from the province of Quebec can sit in the Parliament of Canada as a representative of a Quebec constituency even at the present moment-she has that right under our Dominion law. Surely it will be grossly anomalous and worse than that, to say that a woman may sit in this Parliament as .a representative from Quebec and yet the women of that province shall not have the right to vote. That anomaly would be overcome by the proposition contained in this Bill.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I do not want to dwell at too great length upon the provisions of this Bill. I am afraid I have already occupied too much time of the House. There are, howeveT, one or two points I would like to allude to before resuming my seat, and one of them is in regard to a criticism which I heard a few days ago by a member of the House, who said he had read the Bill from beginning to end and his first suggestion was that it was too fair to be honest- "that there must be something lurking within the provisions of the Bill, or something at present unseen; it is absolutely too fair." The next criticism he offered is the one I intend to deal with for a moment. He said: "The only tinge or taint of partisanship I find in the whole Bill is in regard to the appointment of returning ofiicers." Well, in regard to the appointment of returning .officers, we have adopted the course which has been in vogue here ever since Confederation, and is in vogue to-day in the majority of the provinces, though not in all of them. That is that in His Majesty's writ, in the writ of His Excellency the Governor General, the Governor in Council shall name the man who is to be returning officer. That system is still continued. There has been a great deal of discussion upon that point by the Government. I can assure the House that this Bill has received every serious consideration in respect to all of its clauses and all of its proposals. The clause dealing with returning ofiicers was one of those most seriously considered, and we concluded there was no better system which we knew of or could devise, no safer .system in the interest of the public, than that provided for here. The Government of the day must be responsible for the elections, and if an unfair election takes place .the responsibility must be upon their shoul-
ders. They must be answerable to the people, you cannot place the responsibility .on His Excellency the Governor General; he only speaks through his Cabinet, or through the Prime Minister, the mouthpiece of his Cabinet. The Prime Minister must recommend to His Excellency the name to be put in the writ as returning officer. Now that returning officer is the appointee of the Government, and has the power, under this Bill, to appoint deputy returning officers and registrars, both rural and urban; and my friend in discussing that .question said to me, "That leaves open the door to all kinds of partisanship and corruption." Now, I deny that suggestion, and I believe that anybody who examines the clauses of this Bill as they apply to deputy returning officers and to registrars will see that the measure has been drawn in such a way as absolutely to preclude dishonesty, no matter how evilly disposed the returning officer may be. He has the power to appoint deputy returning officers; he has the power to appoint the registrar in the pity, town or village and also the registrar in the rural district. Yet no man can be .deprived of his vote by the partisan act of the registrar-it is impossible. If the voter goes to the registrar and the registrar refuses him, he asks for a certificate of refusal. 'Suppose the registrar is really a .corrupt and dishonest man and says: "No, I will not give you a certificate." In that event the applicant can appeal to the judge without certificate. Suppose the man does not go to register at all, and it is well known that where there is a limited time to do a certain thing there are a great many people inclined to leave it to the last minute of the last day. Suppose there are a good many there at the last moment of the last day, and some of them are left off the list through lack of time; that does not deprive them of their votes. They may still go to the judge without reference to the registrar at all, without taking a certificate of refusal, without giving notice of appeal, and obtain relief, for the judge has such absolutely unfettered discretion in the matter that no man can be deprived of his right to vote.


Mr. DEMERS:: Is there in every case a right of appeal from the decision of the registrar?	'


Hugh Guthrie: Yes.


Marie Joseph Demers: Even in the rural polling division?


Hugh Guthrie: No, there is no appeal at all in the rural polling division; there

.the elector has the right to vote under section 63. I am referring now only to urban divisions. If under this Bill a man does not vote at an election, it is purely his own fault. I do not care how partisan or corrupt an officer may be, the *man's right to vote is there, and he can vote.
In a rural division the registrar has to make up the list and sit for five days thereafter to hear complaints. Let us assume that he is a man of evil disposition, is thoroughly partisan, and intends, if possible, to be a wrong-doer. A man in the rural section comes to have his name put on the voters' list and is refused. That is the worst that can happen to him there. He .may still on election day go to the poll, take the oath, mark the ballot, and vote just the same as an ordinary elector. If under the provisions of this Bill any man loses his vote he has no one to blame but himself, because no amount of partisanship or wrong-doing can deprive him of exercising bis right to vote if he insists on doing so.
The Government has been criticised on the ground that this is rather an open door method. Prominent members of the Opposition have said to me, "I do not like that; it is too open." My hon. friend the leader of the Opposition was not in the House when the War-time Elections. Act was under discussion. Had he been here he would have heard my hon. friend from Halifax (Mr. Maclean), and the then member for Victoria and Carleton (Mr. Carvell) denouncing the Government of that day because it would not adopt this system, but preferred the system of the '"tied ballot." Under that Act a man could not get his vote in the ballot box; he could only tender his vote, but it would be kept in an envelope and not counted. But this is the open system, whereby every man and woman is absolutely assured of the right to vote; nothing can deprive them of that right but their own inactivity.
I have heard the suggestion made that it would enable a party of automobilists to go out of a city like Toronto into an adjoining rural constituency and plump in their votes by merely taking the oath under section 63. If that objection has any merit at all the Government does not insist upon this particular system. The Government is not adopting it for anything it can gain by it; it was inserted for the protection of hon. members opposite.


An hon. MEMBER:: Thank you; that was very kind of the Government.


Hugh Guthrie: If the Government
wanted to take an unfair advantage it could do so far more effectively, but the Government is trying to be absolutely fair, and if any hon. member by searching this Bill line by line, and clause by clause, can discover the so-called joker or Ethiopian in the wood-pile, I can assure him that if he points it out it will be removed. But I challenge any hon. member to point out any opportunity for wrong-doing undeT this measure.
I would further say that if my hon. friends ask to have deleted that clause which gives the elector in rural districts the right to cast his vote upon taking the oath under section 63, it will be stricken out. It is not put in for the protection of the Government, but for the protection of those who do not control elections.
In regard to the appointment of returning officers, it will be remembered that a committee of this House held an investigation some years ago to devise some better means of making such appointments. That committee could devise no better means. We bad thought of having the House make the appointments of returning officers, but when that proposal comes down to the final analysis it again is appointment by the Government. It has been said that we should allow these appointments to be made by the judges1.


Mr. ROSS:: Hear, hear.


Hugh Guthrie: My hon. friend from West Middlesex says, " Hear, hear." I take distinct issue with him. I agree that a judge is the proper man under an election Act to settle legal rights if disputes take place; but I would emphasize the desirability of keeping the judiciary of this country away from the ordinary machinery of elections. What would happen is this- and it will happen in Ontario if the present proposal of the Ontario Government is carried out, as I understand it from the newspaper reports of yesterday-if you give to a judge power to appoint returning officers, be he ever so fair and judicial in his appointments, a mistake will happen at some place, there will be wrong-doing some time or other, and the first man to be blamed will be the judge, with the result that you will have the judicial robes trailed through the political mire. So far as I viev it- and it is no business of mine to criticise a measure introduced by the Ontario Government-the weakest point in their proposed system is that they make the county judge the president of the Election Board and that board appoints the returning



officers. The experience in this House in regard to the conduct of returning officers at elections has not been bad; it has been good. Personally I have never heard of misconduct by a returning officer; I have heard of it in the Ontario elections where they have another system. I think in a number of the provinces they appoint sheriffs, registrars and other public officials. Now, there is something to be said in favour of that system.
iMr.' POWER: Will the hon. gentleman permit me a question? Is it not a fact that under the proposed Act the judges appoint the revising officers?


Hugh Guthrie: The judges are the revising officers, and they may appoint such fit and suitable additional revising officers as may be necessary in any particular locality.


Charles Gavan Power: What is the difference between the appointment of a revising officer and the appointment of a returning officer?


Hugh Guthrie: A revising officer is in the nature of a judge. Let me point this out to my hon. friend. For the city of Quebec and the city of Montreal there is a registrar, and any one dissatisfied with his action may appeal to a judge, who is the Chief Justice of the Superior Court of that district. Now, it is not to be supposed that in a riding like West Quebec one Appellate judge can do all the work. He might be able to attend to it, but I doubt it very much, and in case he can not, he has the same power as a High Court judge of Ontario to call in a County Court judge.


Charles Gavan Power: Not necessarily a barrister or


Hugh Guthrie: No. If my hon. friend considers that such a provision should be inserted in this Bill, personally I see no objection to it; if such a qualification is desired I think it might well go in. But if we recognize that the judges are the proper body to decide these matters, and we have more appeals than we have judges, who should appoint others to help them? Remember, they occupy judicial positions. I think the best provision is that made by the Bill which allows the judges to make additional appointments.
Now, in regard to the system of appointment of public officers, I am going to discuss it from the standpoint of Ontario, because for a long time there the law provided that sheriffs and registrars should be the returning officers. At this distance
[Mr. Guthrie. 1
of time we might as well be candid and admit that that was a good, safe and satisfactory law for the old Liberal Governments of that province. Why, it was really committing the duties of returning officers to their best friends-they must have been good friends or they would never have got those positions. Not only that, but they were officials who could be removed by the Government at any time. There was therefore a double objection to that system. As far back as my memory goes the first sheriff I remember in the county of Wellington was the Hon. Peter Gow, at one time provincial secretary in the Government of Sir Oliver Mowat. He later became sheriff. Well, it was quite safe to trust the duties of returning officer to that man. When he died, he was followed by the late Robert McKim, who was the sitting member of the Legislature supporting the Government; the Government could quite safely trust the affairs of an election to Sheriff McKim. When Robert McKim died he -was followed by the present incumbent, Sheriff Allan, also sitting member of the Legislature and supporter of the Liberal administration; it was quite safe to appoint him returning officer. Then, take the matter of registrar. The earliest date to which my memory takes me is the time when this appointment went to James Massie, sitting member for South Wellington, a supporter of the Government. When he died, Colonel Higginbotham was appointed, for many years a Liberal member of this House, supporting the Liberal Opposition. When he died, Henry Hortop was appointed; he was not a sitting member, but had been a candidate in the local election. All of these men were of the highest character and standing in the community, but they were all political partisans prior to their appointment. So that throughout the whole length and breadth of Ontario I do not know that there have been more than five or six sheriffs and registrars who were not appointees of the late Liberal Government; in 1905, when it went out of office, in fact, the majority Of them had sat in the Legislature of Ontario as supporters of the Government. Now, do you think that is a good system? The only outstanding case of electoral irregularity that I know of was * the case of West Elgin, where the sheriff had been appointed returning officer. There may have been others, but that is the only one I can recall at the moment. I have never in my experience heard of a single instance where electoral corruption has been charged against the returning officer in my district. For these reasons, and be-

cause it is right and proper that the responsibility should rest upon some shoulders for this appointment, the Government is determined to accept that responsibility. They have determined to accept it because no better system, no fairer system, has yet been devised, and until a better system is devised the Government will appoint returning officers under the provisions of this Bill.
There are a great many details in the Bill,. Mr. Speaker, which I shall not now. make an attempt to cover; indeed, I should not touch upon details on the motion for second reading. I have already spoken at far too great length, but possibly it will be found that the time I have taken up this afternoon will not have been wasted; that in the end it may prove to have effected a certain amount of economy in the further discussion of the Bill. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: (leader of the Opposition) : Mr. Speaker, may I immediately congratulate my hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Guthrie) upon the exceptionally clear, lucid and comprehensive statement which he has just given to the House? His concluding remarks to the effect that the length of time he had taken in delivering his address would in the end possibly prove of advantage to the House may, I think, be concurred in. His statement, with one exception, which I shall mention, has been from beginning to end helpful find most illuminating. Particularly do we thank my hon. friend for having at the commencement of this debate gone so fully in historical outline into past legislation pertaining to the franchise and also into the constitutional aspect and the question of the right of this Parliament and the right of the provinces respectively to legislate with regard to this matter.
I am sorry to have to say to my hon. friend that in that part of his argument which had to do with the constitutional aspect, and which constituted the 'major portion of his address, he was beside the mark in one respect: he led the House to believe that in some way or another I had questioned the right of this Parliament to legislate regarding the franchise. I challenge my hon. friend to point to any remark of mine, in Hansard or elsewhere, which has ever questioned the right of this Parliament to enact a federal franchise law. I am not fortunate m possessing the legal training that my hon. friend has had, but I have some little knowledge of constitutional law and of the constitution of this country, and 464
I know as well as he does that as between the provinces and the Dominion, where no powers are specified other than those mentioned in Section 92 of the British North America Act as belonging to the provinces, the residue of power rests with the Federal Parliament and that this Parliament has full and complete jurisdiction in the matter of enacting a law pertaining to the federal franchise. As I proceed I shall take occasion to refer to the remarks which I made in the debate on the Address, to which my hon. friend alluded, and to show just what was the purport of the reference which I made to provincial lists on that occasion. Everything I said at that time I am prepared to repeat at this. I made the remark I did then in order that the Government, and my hon. friend in particular, might have it in mind when he should speak on this occasion. He has not, I think, met the point that I then raised, but, as he has said, there will be opportunity throughout the debate to do so, and doubtless he will give his reasons later if he takes exception to it.
But while I congratulate my hon. friend on the lucidity of his exposition, I congratulate him. still more upon the spirit in whi'ch the Government, according to his statement, is prepared to meet Parliament with respect to the legislation which they are bringing down. He has made it clear that so far as the Bill before the House at the .moment is concerned, the Government do not propose to view its provisions as being like the laws of the Medes and Persians; that, on the other hand, the Government will be ready to accept any suggestion that appeals to the wisdom of the House;' ready to accept any amendment which may tend to make this1 Act in the nature of a model and a guide for all future laws dealing with the question oif the franchise. Well, I am happy to assure my hon. friend and the Government that we are only too ready to meet them in that spirit. We have no desire to make of this measure a political football, a matter of party gain or loss one way or the other.
Mr. Speaker, the measure now before us is not only the most important measure which will come before Parliament this session; it is one of the most important measures that can come before Parliament at any time. The considerations which we have to take into account in discussing this measure are much larger than those of the fortunes of any member of the House, or of any party in the House, or of any Government. We have been passing through

periods of great change in the 5 p.m. world's history. Society, from many points of view, has been torn up by the roots. We have suffered through the war great loss not only in wealth and in human life, but, as I said once before in this House, also in the institutions of our country. Our political institutions have suffered along with everything else; public confidence, to a certain extent, has been shaken in the institution of Government itself. That has been inevitable through the effect war has upon Government and its actions, but there is, therefore, a double reason why at this time, having before us a measure which is fundamental and sacred as respects the rights of citizenship, and which lies at the very foundation of self government in all free communities, we should seek as far as we can to restore that confidence in political institutions which has been impaired, if not indeed largely shattered, as one of the consequences of the war. It is in that spirit that we on this side are prepared to meet the Government in considering this legislation, to see if we cannot, through joint action, take part in the work of reconstruction and restore, not faith in the Government, not faith in the Opposition nor in any party or section, but faith in our political institutions as the best thus far devised by man for the government of man.
It is important in regard to any measure of franchise that may be brought down that it should, above all, give to the people of the country a feeling of confidence that through that instrument their will in regard to matters pertaining to Government will find free and full expression and not be frustrated by any electoral or other device.
My hon. friend gave the best of reasons why some legislation should be introduced when he referred to the fact that even he himself, and the Government of which he is a member, are unable to say at this moment just what position the country would be in as respects the franchise should a dissolution. of Parliament take place. That, from one point of view, is something of a reflection upon the Government itself. My hon. friend said that legislation now 'being repealed had to be introduced in .consequence of conditions which arose during the war. Well, that may he an excuse for the obnoxious legislation that was introduced, but it is no excuse for ,tihe fact that there should ever come a time in this country when the Government would have to admit to the people that they were unable to say 
what law would govern in the event of an appeal being made to the people, and the people toeing given an opportunity to express their will. But what any hon., friend has said is altogether too true. The right hon1. Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty), who I am sorry is not here at the moment, was interviewed a short time ago on this very matter. I quote from the Montreal Star of January 13, 1920:
" Suppose that before a new franchise is passed there should he a general election, what Act would apply?" was asked of the minister. " That," he said, " is somewhat of a conundrum, but I should say we might have to go hack to the old Dominion Elections Act."
My hon. friend the Acting Solicitor General (Mr. Guthrie) intimated this afternoon that instead of having to go back to the old Dominion Elections Act, we might have to have an election under the War-time Elections Act and the Military Voters' Act-that we had not yet reached a time of peace, and that therefore these Acts still govern. I am prepared to leave the grounds for the introduction of a new Act at this time just where the minister himself has placed them. I think they do constitute the strongest of reasons why at the earliest possible moment, as I suggested in the early days of this session, a Bill should be placed before this House which would remove all doubt and uncertainty in regard to the franchise of this country. My hon. friend's words, as I took them down, were " at the present time it is doubtful if there is any valid and subsisting franchise law governing the conduct of elections by which the will of electors could be expressed," also " if we had an election we would be in rather an awkward predicament "; further that the Bill had been introduced " for the purpose of rendering definite and certain what otherwise might be indefinite and uncertain." Well, Mr. Speaker, as I have just said, we welcome this opportunity of getting back to some basis of certainty and definiteness with regard to the all important question of the franchise.
Let me say that first and foremost we welcome the feature of this Act, that proposes to repeal at one stroke all the legislation which this Government has enacted respecting the franchise since the time it took office. In Schedule Four of the Act will be found a reference to the different measures which have been enacted by this Parliament in. regard to the franchise and which it is proposed to repeal in their entirety:	An Act to amend the Dominion
Elections Act (Statutes 1915), the Military Voters' Act, 1917, the War-time Elections

Act (Statutes 1917), An Act to Confer the Electoral Franchise upon Women (Statutes 1918), An Act to amend Chapter Thirty-nine of the Statutes of 1917 (Statutes 1918), An Act respecting the Election held in the Electoral District of Yukon, 1918 (Statutes 1918), the Dominion By-Election Act, 1919, and An Act to amend the Dominion ByElection Act, 1919 (Statutes 19l9, 2nd Session). The Government, by this legislation, proposes to clean the slate of all these measures. I congratulate the Government upon giving evidence of its desire to clean the slate entirely of legislation which, to use the expressive language of my hon. friend the member for Halifax (Mr. Maclean), a former member of the Administration, constitutes a blot upon our national career. We cannot but be too glad that this stain is to be wiped off the records of this Parliament in. so far as that can be done by legislative enactment.	-s.
So far as this Act is symbolical of the Government's intention to wipe out their own iniquities, to forget the past, and forgive, as well as to forget, we congratulate them upon the decision they are taking, and we heartily offer to unite with them in an endeavour to put upon the Statutes in the place of the legislation they are removing, an Act which, as my hon. friend has said, may be a model to the whole of Canada. I am prepared, Mr. Speaker, to believe that the purpose of the Government in effacing the legislation to which I have referred and bringing a fresh Bill before Parliament, is to do what they can in this post-war period, through the medium of this legislation, to unite the people of this country in good-will and good works as respect matters pertaining to the work of Parliament and the Government of the country. In that spirit we are only too happy to join in rendering whatever assistance we can from this side of the House to perfect the Act in every particular.
That leads me to speak of the attitude of the Opposition in regard to the second reading of this Bill. So far as any principle involved in this legislation is concerned, it can only be that of the desirability of having a Franchise Act which will be definite, known, just and fair. To that principle we can take no exception; it has our hearty endorsation, and we shall be only too glad to see the Government proceed) with all the expedition possible, not only to get such legislation on the Statutes, but also to give the people of the country an opportunity to express their will under its provisions and have returned a Parliament which will be truly representative.
Let me say, Mr. Speaker, that while we acquiesce heartily in the principle of the Bill in so far as it means a new franchise, there are in the measure itself many provisions which we should like to see modified; and when it reaches the committee stage we on this, side of the House will offer .amendments or suggestions in regard to some of the sections, and we trust that when the Government hears what is to be said from the point of view we shall then put forward they will see the wisdom of amending the Bill accordingly.
My hon. friend in introducing this measure outlined its main provisions, and in his address to-day he repeated the outline in much the same form. I will take up what he said, just in a few words, and refer to the main features of the Bill.
Let me take the features of the Bill as my hon. friend has stated them. He points out, in the first place, that the purpose of. the Bill is to fix a uniform franchise throughout the Dominion. With that purpose we are in entire accord. In the second place, it is proposed to provide a uniform' method for the preparation of voters' lists

As to the provision of a uniform method., that depends in large measure upon just what the particular method is for which the Government desires uniformity. I think there is room for improvement in the Bill in that particular. In the third place, it aims to provide a simple and satisfactory method for the conduct of elections. We all wish to see a simple and satisfactory method provided as soon as possible, and there can be no question that any means that will achieve that end is eminently desirable.
The franchise, my hon. friend says, is to be established upon very broad principles. The only requirements in regard to>
qualifications will be, he informs us, those of British citizenship, residence in Canada, for one year, and in the particular constituency for two months, and attainment of the age of twenty-one years; these requirements to apply in the oases of male and female voters alike. Now, Mr. Speaker, nothing could be fairer than that, and all that we ask, as respects the qualifications there set out, is that the Government shall not profess one thing and do another; that it shall not give with one hand and withhold with the other as respects the provisions of this enactment, or its relation to any other statutes which have been enacted in the past or which may be enacted ini the future by this 'Parliament. It was for that reason

that I asked my right hon. friend the Acting Prime Minister (Sir George Foster) the other day, whether the Government had any intention of introducing a disfranchising act at this session or any subsequent session of this Parliament. In the Bill before the House there is mention of a disfranchising act. That I understand has re ference to an act so-named already on the statutes, and does not refer to some aot that is contemplated and that does not as yet appear. I am glad to see my right hon. friend nods his concurrence, and is prepared to approve that statement.
In regard to one other matter, there is an exception to this requirement of British citizenship. It is an exception which was mentioned by my hon. friend, the Acting Solicitor General (Hon. Mr. Guthrie) at the time of introducing the Bill, in answer to a question I put 'to him on that occasion. He then drew my attention to a section in the Act with respect to provisions in provincial legislation regarding the rights of voters where considerations of race were concerned. Speaking generally, I imagine that every member of this House will feel that there should be no exceptions with reference to the rights which may accrue in virtue of British citizenship. On the other hand, as I read in the Act the exception I refer to, II am inclined to believe it is not so much an exception on any ground of race, as in the nature of a recognition of the problems of which a province may have to take account, and that in this respect it is only in accord with the federal spirit of our constitution which recognizes that while we may have one franchise for the Dominion of Canada as a whole we should at all times be prepared to consider, in matters which may involve international as well as national questions, the special concerns of particular provinces. While my hon. friend made a long speech to the House on ignoring provincial considerations, I should like to point out to him that in his own legislation in this particular he has recognized the very factor of provincial consideration, of which in 'any remarks I have made I have sought to have some account taken.
So much for the first main provision of the Bill. The second relates to the preparation of the voters' lists. And here, Mr. Speaker, I could not but be surprised at my hon. friend's taking exception to some statement which he said I bad made in reference to provincial lists, inasmuch as, explaining this part of the Act, the very first sentence he uses is to the effect that one of the principles of the Act is the adoption o
[Mr. Mackenzie King.1
provincial lists in certain particulars. Let me read my hon. friend's words, which will be found in Hansard of March 11, at page 353:
In regard to the preparation of voters' lists, the principle adopted is that the existing lists in any province

Surely that is a recognition of provincial lists-
:-the existing lists in any province which are authorized by law for use in provincial elections shall be utilized in Dominion elections.
I have never intimated at any time that more than that should be done. Let me read from the speech which I made in this House, and to which my hon. friend has referred, exactly what I said in reference to provincial lists. I am sorry to take up the time of the House in quoting anything that has already been said; but, I am sure, .Mr. Speaker, that my hon. friends will agree that it is necessary to do so at this moment. On March 1, 1920, at page 29 of Hansard, I spoke as follows:
'Speaking on the subject of the franchise, perhaps I might at this moment say a word in reference to the Government's promise in the speech from the Throne to bring in a new Franchise Bill. It is unfortunate for the country that the Bill "referred to will owe its origin in part to some whose names have been associated with the kind of legislation I have just described.
I had been speaking then in reference to the War-time Elections Act and the Military Voters' Act.
But let me assure the Government that if it will bring in a Bill which will help to restore public confidence in our political institutions; if it will bring in a Bill which will be honest .and fair and1 true to the rights of the people, it will find the Opposition ready to assist and to expedite the passage of that measure. But, 'Sir, if a Franchise Bill is to 'be introduced in a form which will constitute another blot on our country's name and fame, whatever means the Government adopts to pass it, they must expect to find hon. gentlemen on this side prepared' to resist to the utmost of their power legislation prejudicial to the fundamental rights of the people.
The first question we' would like to ask the Administration is why should there be a new Franchise Act at all? The old' Dominion Elections Act has been on the Statutes for twenty-five years and in succession a majority of 'both political parties has been returned under its provisions. Why then do we need another Act? Why should anything more be necessary than to amend the provisions of the present statute and bring them into conformity with the needs of the country? The Government may have reasons for its proposals and we will await those reasons.
I direct my hon. friend's attention to the following words:

But I point out to the Government now so that they may take due notice of it, that if there is any endeavour to substitute a system of Dominion enumeration for the provincial lists which have been followed in accordance with the spirit of our constitution, the Government will have to give a pretty clear and satisfactory explanation before a measure. of that kind will meet with the approval of the House and of the country. After the experience the country has had with Dominion enumerators, care will he taken before the freedom of our people is once again placed in the hands of the Administration for manipulation as it may see best toy its own creatures. So much, Sir, in reference to the franchise and what it stands for.
I submit, Sir, that there is not a line in the [foregoing statement which can 'be interpreted as meaning that in any way I have questioned the authority of this Parliament to pass a federal Act.
The only reference I made to provincial lists was to say that if the [Government proposed to depart from the use of provincial lists arud to extend the system of enumeration, the Government would have to give some very clear and satisfactory reason for so doing. 1 regret that my hon. friend, in his remarks, did not give us a satisfactory reason in that regard', but we shall doubtless have an opportunity as the debate goes on to have that particular point discussed.
What does the Bill propose?
According to the speech of the Acting Solicitor General when introducing the Bill:
In regard to the preparation of voters' lists, the principle adopted is that the existing lists in any province which are authorized by law for use in provincial elections shall he utilized in Dominion elections provided that they are not more than one year old or that not longer than twelve months has elapsed between the completion of such lists and the issue of a writ for the Dominion elections.
May I follow the example of my hon. friend and refer more particularly to Ontario. The voters' lists for Ontario were made up prior to the last provincial election in the month of November last year. The new Government that has come into power in Ontario has decided, to use the words of their own Attorney General, to scrap all the legislation that had to do with the system of enumeration. They have thought it well to do that because they believe that the system of enumeration does not give satisfaction, or lend confidence to any franchise law. But were we to have an election today on the last provincial list, what position would we be in? It has been disclosed since that list was prepared, to give only two examples, that in this very city-the city of Ottawa-some 8,000 names were left off, that the enumeration was so badly managed
that 8,000 electors in this city did not have their names on the lists although they were entitled to have them there and in the city of Toronto something like 25,000 names were left off.


Mr. MIDDLEBRO:: Does my hon. friend not know that these names can be added?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am quite
aware that under this Bill these names can be added, but the point I wish to draw my hon. friend's attention to is that a system of enumeration which results in leaving off
8.000	names in one place and -25,000 in another at any particular election cannot be a satisfactory one. If such a thing happened on that occasion the same result is apt to happen at any other time, and in seeking to enact by Parliament a law that will be satisfactory and which will serve to give full expression to the people's will we should endeavour to avoid the possible dissatisfaction and limitations which have been so patent in 'the instances I have pointed out.


Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: Such an error
would not necessarily follow.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Let me draw my right hon. friend's attention to this. In the last provincial election, in addition to the election of members, there was a prohibition referendum. My right hon. friend, who is an old temperance advocate, knows very well tlhat in that particular election there was an effort made on the part of those who were supporting temperance legislation to get names on the lists much greater than would have been the case had the referendum not been one of the features of that particular election. Instead of
8.000	names in one ease and 25,000 in another having been left off the numbers would have been considerably greater. That they were not was due to the energy of the men and women who sought to have as many names as possible put upon the lists despite the system of enumeration that was followed. What we on this side advocate is that where you have organized districts in which lists are already prepared by the constituted authorities, these lists should be made the basis of the lists on which the election is to be held, and that if it is necessary to appoint enumerators to .piake up lists, the enumerators should/ begin with the lists that are already prepared and take these lists as a basis. If a man has been put on the municipal list by an assessor in a city or in a rural district, and his name is there, that should be sufficient to guarantee to him the right to a vote at

Bill requires that on the day of polling the enumerators shall hand their lists to whoever is in charge of the poll, but after the lists have been handed to the deputy returning officer, any man or woman, notwithstanding that his or her name is not on the list, can, if willing to take the prescribed oath, exercise the right to vote, and that ballot is put into the ballot box along with other ballots to be counted along with the rest, and there is no way of distinguishing it from any of the others. I am sure that my hon. friends, when they stop to think what that procedure means, will hesitate to give it permanent expression in any legislation. I confess that it made me feel sad at heart when I read that particular provision.


George Green Foster: Buck up.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: "Buck up"
my right hon. friend says. I shall "buck up," my hon. friend need have no fear. But I was sad at heart for the reason that if there is one purpose above another -we should seek to accomplish in legislation of this kind it is to find a means above suspicion to give to the people the right to exercise the franchise fairly and honestly, and I despaired of that when I saw this provision.


George Green Foster: When we come to those details-and of course they are details-then we can thresh them out.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am glad to hear my right hon. friend say that we can thresh out those details, because I am sure he is already feeling that it is a great mistake to have ever had the Bill drafted in that form-


George Green Foster: I am not saying that.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: -for it certainly shakes confidence not only in the legislation as it will be when finally enacted, should these provisions stand, but to a certain extent in the Government's intentions, when it brings down a measure of that kind. I desire to. be the last to entertain distrust of the Government's intention to do other than what it has professed to be its wish, namely, to put an Act on the' statutes which will be above suspicion. .
Before I leave this particular feature of the Bill I wish to point out that as the Bill now stands any group of men could go into any rural riding, demand at one poll the right to vote, be given that right by the returning officer, exercise that right, and

then go on to the next poll, and the next, and so on, for as many polls as they are willing to attempt, and vote in every one. They might be men of no character, men brought from the country to the south out of quarters of cities where only men prepared to perjure themselves could be found. The Bill as it is drawn invites irregularities of that kind, because it makes possible through the act of perjury the winning of any riding in a rural district where the opposing parties are at all evenly matched. We should be the last to pass any measure which will tend not only to destroy the confidence of the electorate in the machinery of elections, but which will also tend to foster irregularities and crime. There should be finality in the matter of the preparation of the voters' lists and the possibility of revision before some regularly constituted authorities.
Now, Sir, apart from the features of the Bill which I have already dealt with, the only other general feature mentioned by my hon. friend is the machinery provided for the conduct of elections. I think in that respect the Bill follows pretty much along the lines of the legislation we are accustomed to, and in so far as that is the case, no exception can be taken to it.
There are a few innovations in the Bill, such as the provision for the appointment of a general electoral officer, the separation of nomination and polling days by an interval of fourteen days instead of the customary seven, and one or two other minor features. Doubtless the Government has reasons for introducing these innovations and will give them when the Bill is in Committee.
With the exceptions and possibilities I have pointed out, there are features of the Bill which all will be prepared to commend, and I have only to repeat what I said at the outset, that in discussing this measure at the present time we of the Opposition wish to approach the Government in the spirit in which the hon. Acting Solicitor General (Mr. Guthrie) has said he is desirous of having the Bill considered. All we want is a fair Bill, a Bill that will be effective and make the machinery of elections economical, a Bill which when it is upon the statutes will help to restore on the part of the electorate confidence that their will is being expressed and not frustrated by any electoral device-a Bill that will be honest and just. If we can get that we will be not only doing a service to the

people of our own country, but we will be helping the cause of good government everywhere.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. F. F. PARDEE (West Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, after the very able presentation which the Minister of Militia (Hon. Mr. Guthrie) gave us this afternoon of the proposed Franchise Act one would imagine- and it may be so; further inquiry will, perhaps, clear up that point-that all that this House and the Canadian people had to do was to fall down and worship and thank Heaven that such a fair Franchise Act had been introduced. I say, Sir, that perhaps they will, but perhaps they will not. In the few remarks that I have to make I shall take up the suggestion made by the minister that both the Opposition and hon. gentlemen on the Government side should give their very best judgment and their very best thought to the consideration of this Bill, and that the Government would be content to accept any amendments which in their opinion might be deemed proper. The minister asked for suggestions and amendments in order that the whole matter might be made just as clear and just as fair as possible. In fact, he used the word " fairness "; he said that the Government desired only to submit to the country an Act that was absolutely fair; that, he said, was all they wanted to do. I shall confine myself to one phase of this proposed Act, Sir, reserving to myself, of course, the right to suggest in committee what in my opinion and in the opinion of this side of the House may be for the better working of the Act.
As long as I have been in public life, the one thing that has done more to divide the Canadian people and to make Canada more difficult to govern than any country that I know of has been the continual raising of racial and religious questions, day in and day out, month in and month out, year in and year out. There has never been a time during the course of my public life that I have not had to contend against this: There has never been a time, Sir, that I have not deprecated it with all the force that was in me. To my mind it is the greatest curse that has descended upon this fair country. It is the one thing that keeps Canada from being what it ought to be. In my opinion, members of this House ought to sink absolutely such considerations; ought to look upon themselves as Canadians and as Canadians only and come to the conclusion that no distinctions shall be made of class or creed. Could that be done, it would be for the benefit of Canada as a nation and would tend in the very greatest degree, more than anything else could tend, to the building up of our country to what it ought to be.
Sir, we had the war, and things were more or less abnormal. Ideas rather ran amuck; we were more or less carried away, and perhaps we did some things which in more sober moments we would not do. Section 30 of this Bill which has been brought down says:
The respective persons hereunder mentioned shall for the time specified as to each such person he disqualified and incompetent to vote at an election.
And subsection (d) of this section says: " Persons disfranchised under the Disfranchising Act ".
The Disfranchising Act is really the Naturalization Act of 1919. By Chapter 38, section 8, subsection 4, paragraph (b), the Naturalization Act of 1919 says:
No certificate of naturalization shall, before the expiration of a period of ten years after the termination of the present war, be granted in Canada to any subject of a country who at the time of the passing of this Act was at war with His Majesty, but this provision shall not apply to a person who-
Then it goes to refer to those who served in His Majesty's forces, and so on. When you come to consider this section and read it in conjunction with section 30 of the proposed Bill, what does it mean? It means that any person who, by reason of being an alien enemy, is not now entitled to apply for naturalization, or who cannot be naturalized under the law as it stands at present, cannot vote for a period of ten years.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: I hear some hon. gentlemen opposite say, " Hear, hear ". I will put a question to them. Now that the war is over, should we continue to manifest the spirit that prevailed while the war was in progress? Should we not forget our differences and proceed to build ourselves up into a big, strong nation? Should we for ten long years keep open the old sores by putting a man in such a position that it may be said of him: That man, although he adds to the wealth of Canada; although he pays taxes; although he is a friend of this country, shall not have the right to vote; shall not have the slightest thing to

do with the Government of this country? I ask any man in this House whether that tends to the upbuilding of Canada; whether it will make of this a united country? In my opinion it is the one thing Canada can do to perpetuate and keep open the old sore of. race and religion which has cursed this country for yeaTS past, and I say to the members of this House and to every man, .woman and child in Canada that if they wish to have immigration come to these .shores and to see this country grow great and become what she ought to become, the sooner we get rid of that spirit the better.


Mr. SUTHERLAND:: How does the hon. member come to associate religion with the disqualification of an alien enemy?


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: I was not associating religion with it. I said that was the cry in times past, and that this is nothing more or less than an attempt to perpetuate that cry. The Act, so far as this section is concerned, is bad, and against the best interests of the people of this country. It is not such an Act as will redound to the credit of Canada. Why, the War-times Election Act is not a patch on this Act for disqualifying citizens, when we read these two sections in conjunction. Even the mother of a son who went to the war and fought with the Allies and was killed may not be entitled to vote under this Act; the younger son in a family may vote, and the older son may not vote. Reading these two sections in conjunction, and taking into consideration all their ramifications, I say without fear of successful contradiction that there will be more people disfranchised under this Act as it stands to-day than were disfranchised under the War-times Election Act. Do we want that? Canada is a young country, with between 8,000,000 and 9,000,000 of people, and in what does Canada's hope lie? How can this country become prosperous? Only in one way, and that is by having people come to our shores and tilling our land and engaging in our industries. Only in that way will you get out of Canada the real stuff that is in it. It is the only way in which we can develop our potential resources. Will people come to our shores with that section of the Act barring them foT ten long years from a voice in the government of this country, as to who shall or shall not rule? They will not. Where will Canada be then? Where wall the great West be, with its millions of acres crying for people to come and till them? Will you get these people? Not at

all. I say that no one considers himself a citizen who does not feel that he has a right to a voice in the government of his country. If the sections I have quoted are to be retained in the Act, disfranchising these people and keeping open the old sore, the Act will not redound to the credit of Canada, but will be absolutely to its detriment. If there is one thing we have preached, and we have preached it more of late since the League of Nations came into being, it is that Canada is a nation. Canada is a nation. Then let us be big enough to put on nationhood's clothes ahd stand as a nation. If we propose to do otherwise, the world, which now has its eyes upon us, will turn them in another direction. No man or woman of alien birth will come to Canada unless they know they will have a right to a voice in Canada's affairs.


Mr. EDWARDS:: Do we want them?


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: We want them.


John Wesley Edwards: That is your opinion; it is not mine.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: My hon. friend may have his opinion, and I may have mine.


John Wesley Edwards: Just so.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: I say that no country can prosper or 'become great or develop its potential wealth without people. Where are the people to come from?


John Wesley Edwards: No country ever became great by suckling traitors.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: There is the old sore.
That is what is keeping Canada where she is to-day. I say there are thousands of people in Canada to-day who will be disfranchised under this Act, who., though of alien birth, are just as loyal as any man that sits in this House to-day. If we are going to keep that old sore open, if a section of our population is going to continue preaching that doctrine, Canada's last, state will be worse than her first.


Mr. CURRIE:: We will get along all right.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Speaking for myself, I say that the shutting out of an alien population is not British. My hon. friend the Acting Solicitor General (Mr. Guthrie) to-day referred to the United States. The United States took a long time to get into the war, but now the war is over; they went into it, and they have come out of it, and do you hear any rumblings in the United States about shutting out alien voters?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Yes.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: No such thing. They are American citizens entitled to take the oath of allegiance, and as such are entitled to a voice in the government of the country, and such voice they have. But we here in Canada, in our splendid isolation, with our 8,000,000 of people on the biggest part of the North American continent, are so inr rtensely ultra-loyal that we say that no matter how loyal these people may be, no matter how much regard they may have for the constitution of Canada, no matter whether they came here to the land of the free to escape the thraldom of the old land, they shall not be allowed to vote for a period of ten years, but shall be segregated and kept apart from the ordinary citizen, and shall have the finger of scorn pointed at them. For what? The only accusation you can bring against them, loyal and Canadian and all as they are, is that their mother was an alien. Why, Mr. Speaker, birth is simply a matter of accident. If we are born to a nation or to a religion, there it is. It is not my fault or your fault or the fault of any one; it is simply an accident, that is all. Are we, Sir, to damn the people that come to this country on that account?


Mr. BURNHAM:: May I ask the hon. gentleman-


Ernest Lapointe: It was an accident for you too.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order.


John Hampden Burnham: I am inclined to think there will be a fatal accident up North to the hon. gentleman.


Ernest Lapointe: Wait and see.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order


John Hampden Burnham: I want to ask the hon. gentleman (Mr. Pardee) if he 'would do away with the precautions taken for the acquirement of citizenship under the Naturalization Act, and under all naturalization acts.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: I did not say so. It is all right to take the precautions, but why in the name of Heaven keep them open for ten years? I have naturalized many men, and women too, and I know that precautions are necessary; but why you should keep that sore open for ten long years, almost a generation, is beyond my humble capacity to understand. Sir, along these lines I have the greatest objection to this Act. I say that so far as we here in this House are concerned, there is only one thing for us to do, and that is to attemptin every way possible, with sane mind and level conception, to unite all the peoples in the Dominion of Canada into one great whole. We should bring them to the idea, and that idea only, that they are Canadians first and members of the British Empire, and that only as Canadians can we go on and make for the great destiny that is open to us. Along these lines legislation ought to go, and if it does not, then I say we are not true to ourselves as Canadian citizens. As I said before, there are other portions of the Act with which I have some fault to find. I shall not go into them now; I shall take the opportunity to do so in committee of the whole house. In the meantime, however, I say most earnestly,- whether this opinion be popular or unpopular I care not a button-that what I have stated is the only way to make Canada what she ought to be. To my mind it is the only way to make Canada a nation of which we can rightly boast. If we are derelict in our duty in doing this, then I say it will redound to the discredit of the country, and will point to the fact that the legislators of the great Dominion of Canada have not that broad vision of nationhood which they ought to have. It will so lower us in the eyes of the world that under those conditions emigration will go from our shores.


John Wesley Edwards: Mr. Speaker, it was not my intention to intervene in this debate on the second reading of the Bill; any comments I have to make I had intended to withhold until the Bill was in committee. However, while I shall not take up very much time, I desire to make a few observations on the remarks which have just fallen from the lips of the hon. member for Lambton (Mr. Pardee). The hon. gentleman is very bold and very courageous in stating to this House and to the country that he does not care a button whether his course is popular or unpopular. Just a short time ago he was perfectly willing, when he was seeking election in 1917, to avail himself of the measure disfranchising some people whom to-day he says it would be a crying shame to disfranchise^


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Mr. Speaker, may I say that although I supported the Union Government, at every stage of the War-time Elections Act I voted against it.


John Wesley Edwards: The hon. gentleman, I repeat-


Ernest Lapointe: Of course.


John Wesley Edwards: Yes, of course. That remark came from the hon. member for Quebec, and I may say-


Ernest Lapointe: It did, and it does again; narrowness true to itself.


John Wesley Edwards: I shall have something to say to the hon. gentleman before I sit down.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order, order.


John Wesley Edwards: The hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat (Mr. Pardee) in the election of 1917 was not only perfectly willing, but anxious to avail himself of the Act which was passed enabling him to get his seat in the House.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: He was not anxious.


John Wesley Edwards: I repeat that the hon. gentleman was perfectly willing, nay eager, to avail himself of the Act which gave the vote to the soldiers overseas, a share of which vote he got.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Not at all.


John Wesley Edwards: Does the hon. gentleman say " no " to that statement?


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Yes.


John Wesley Edwards: The hon. gentleman informs us, then, that he did not want the soldiers' vote. Well, I do not think that on cool reflection he will again deny that the statement I made is correct.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Yes, I will.


John Wesley Edwards: The hon. gentleman
tells us he did not want the soldiers' vote. Well-


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: I did not say so, Mr. Speaker.


Jacques Bureau: Let him proceed; he
must get rid of his bile.


Ernest Lapointe: He has a good
deal of it.


John Wesley Edwards: I did not catch the remarks of the hon. member for Three Rivers.


Jacques Bureau: I said you had to spill your bile. Go on.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order.


John Wesley Edwards: There is a possibility, Mr. Speaker, of my getting rid of all the bile I may have; but-


Ernest Lapointe: Oh, no.


John Wesley Edwards: But there is no possibility of the hon. member for Three Rivers getting rid of his.


Jacques Bureau: He has not got any bile; that is the difference between us.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order. I must appeal
to hon. members, if they desire to address the House, to do the House the courtesy of rising in their seats, and I must also point out that the hon. member who has the floor may not be interrupted except on a point of order or to be asked a question.


Ernest Lapointe: Some men rise and do not know what courtesy is.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order.


John Wesley Edwards: I do not expect court esy from certain hon. members on the other side of the House, especially I may say, the hon. member for Quebec.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order.


Ernest Lapointe: That is something
the hon. gentleman knows nothing about.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order, order.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I trust the hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) will bear in mind that we are debating the principles involved in the second reading of the Franchise Bill.


John Wesley Edwards: That fact, Mr. Speaker, I shall endeavour to keep in mind, but I presume I shall have your sympathy when I say that it is somewhat difficult to keep the subject matter of the debate rigidly in mind in the face of the interruptions which have been levelled at me from the other side of the House and which, I venture to say, have neither been warranted nor courteous. The hon. gentleman who has taken his seat (Mr. Pardee) waxed very eloquent and somewhat violent in his statement that he wanted to see done away with entirely this curse of race and religion, which had divided every country in times past. He hoped to see no more of it. I can cordially join with the hon. gentleman in that wish, but I can hardly understand the gentleman who occupies the seat immediately to his right (Mr. E. Lapointe) saying " hear, hear " to that expression of opinion, for I have a distinct recollection, as I am sure many hon. members have, of that hon. gentleman, who then represented Kamouraska, moving a resolution in this House, when this country was at war, that could have no other effect than to divide the people.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order, order.


John Wesley Edwards: That, I presume, is a
pertinent remark.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The hon. member who
has the floor is quite in order in rebutting any argument of the hon. member for Lamb-ton (Mr. Pardee). He is not in order, however, in referring to the attitude of the hon. member for Quebec, who has not spoken and in discussing a matter which is not germane to the subject before the House.


John Wesley Edwards: Perhaps I was in error, Mr. Speaker, in supposing that the remarks made by the hon. member for Lamb-ton (Mr. Pardee) were added to in strength by the endorsing " hear, hear " of the hon. member for Quebec (Mr. Lapointe). It was on the supposition that the hon. member's expression endorsing the remark of the hon. member for Lambton justified me in directing some remarks to my hon. friend from Quebec that I adverted to that gentleman. Undoubtedly your ruling is correct, Sir, and it was unnecessary for me to refer to the hon. gentleman's " hear, hear " which I am sure added absolutely nothing to the arguments of his colleagues on his left.
The hon. member for Lambton asks us to return to the pre-war spirit, to forget the differences that divided us, to build ourselves into a strong nation, and so on. It is all very well to forget our differences, but in forgetting our differences we should not forget those people who forgot their country when it needed their support. It is all very well for my hon. friend to say: Let us forget our differences and bury the past; let us forget all those people whose sympathies, actively and otherwdse, were turned against the men who went overseas prepared to give their lives for their country; it is all very well for him to say forget these things but we cannot remember the sacrifices that were made by our boys overseas and not remember the attitude of these people.
My hon. friend (Mr. Pardee) thinks that-an alien enemy population of this kind will he the greatest asset of this country. He asks us whether we wish to stop immigration and he answers this question with an emphatic "no." I just as emphatically tell him that 1 do wish to stop that kind of immigration into this country. If you could get the opiniop of the people of Canada generally I am convinced that ninety per cent would say that the country
can get along and build itself up for the next ten years at least without the assistance of any Austrian or German immigrants. We want immigrants in Canada, but, as it has been intimated to us on more than one occasion in this House since the session started, we should in the future have regard to the quality rather than the quantity of the immigrants we get. Will the hon. member for Lambton tell me if his view is that we should throw the doors of this country wide open to the people of Germany, Austria and Turkey and let them come in and take part in making our laws? That apparently is what he wants.
We would be untrue to the men who sacrificed their lives, we would be forgetting those who had been fighting for four or five years and pouring out their blood on the battlefields of Europe if we opened our doors and allowed that class of immigrants to come into this country and have the privileges of other men who fought our battles or whose sons gave up their lives in the war. In that respect (I am perfectly prepared to differ from the hon. member from Lambton just as widely as one pole is separated from the other. I believe the people of Canada will endorse my attitude rather than the attitude of the hon. gentleman.
I want to repeat with the utmost emphasis that in my judgment in framing this Franchise Act we must have regard to the quality of our citizens. If we are to be fair to those who have the privileges of citizenship and who bore unflinchingly the duties of citizenship we cannot regard in the same light those who had the privileges of citizenship but who refused disloyally to bear their share of the responsibilities of citizenship. The hon. member for Lambton and those who sit about him would amend this Franchise Act so that when polling day came in Canada we would have this spectacle: Here is a man back from the front who served several years overseas, he is minus a leg or an arm and otherwise shattered by the war, and here is an Austrian or a German who fought against him, whose sympathies were against him, who was doing everything he could to make it hard for him over there and to prevent his coming back, elbowing him to one side in order that he might put his ballot in the box. I will not endorse such an attitude as that on the part of this or any other government. To place these people on an equality with the men who have made sacrifices in the late war is to cast a slur

on every man who made a sacrifice in that war. The attitude of the hon. member for Lambton and its endorsation by hon. members on that side of the House weakens his argument rather than strengthens it in my opinion.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


John Wesley Edwards: In my opinion the endorsation of what was stated by my hon. friend from Lambton by hon. gentlemen on that side of the House sitting about him weakens his argument rather than strengthens it.


Lucien Cannon: Will the hon. gentleman allow me one question?


John Wesley Edwards: Not from you.


Lucien Cannon: Is the hon. gentleman expressing simply his personal opinion? 'If it is only the hon. gentleman's personal opinion it does not count for much.


John Wesley Edwards: In regard to my personal opinion whether it counts much or little, at all events I believe it will count for just as much in the estimation of the country as any opinion offered by the hon. gentleman who just got up (Mr. Cannon). In the course of his remarks the hon. gentleman for Lambton asked:	"Would Britain shut out
any alien; would that be the policy of Britain; would Britain do anything of that kind?" He characterized this particular portion of the Act .as being un-British and 1 heard "hear, hear" from the hon. gentleman who sits immediately at his right and another "hear, hear" from the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Bureau) and another from that volatile young gentleman who rose just a few moments ago. When I heard the hon. member for Dorchester say, "hear, hear," I thought that it suited his purpose to say that this Act was un-British-that hon. gentleman who, in the course of an election campaign asked: "What do we owe to England,"? wiho replied: "We owe nothing to England," and whose whole stand when he w;as appealing for votes for himself was most shamelessly anti-British.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Joseph Archambault: Sevigny said that.


John Wesley Edwards: It is extremely pleasant to me to get beneath the hides of these hon. gentlemen. In no way could they give greater satisfaction to me than by showing their dissent. If, Mr. Speaker, I received the endorsation of these hon. gentlemen I would be sure that I was wrong. It is because they endorsed the hon. member for
[Mr. Edwards. 1
Lambton that I said that his argument and the conclusion from his argument must be wrong. These gentlemen talked about British institutions and British fair play. What was their attitude when British institutions, the British constitution and the British Empire were at stake?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


John Wesley Edwards: All through the war
what was their attitude?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


John Wesley Edwards: Hon. gentlemen opposite may answer by saying "Oh, oh." In that respect they represent by the aritmetic-al character of "O" which is naught, what they have done to maintain British institutions. They are using the proper term because it accurately (represents their attitude during the war. According to the principles they enunciated during the war, their attitude would be represented by a cypher and therefore they ought to say "O" and say it with very good grace and very properly when referring to their attitude at that particular time. If it means that their consciences are beginning to work, well even I shall be very pleased indeed.


Mr. GAUVREAU:: How does the Franchise Bill come into all this?	*
Mr. AROHAMBALfiLT: Censored by the lodge.


John Wesley Edwards: As I said upon rising I do not intend to discuss this Bill very fully.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, no.


John Wesley Edwards: I was going to follow the example set by the hon. gentleman. (Mr. Pardee) and confine myself to one particular phase of it. I want to assure hon. gentlemen opposite, several of whom have asked me questions on different points that in the limited time at my disposal I am not going to undertake to fill the void in their craniums which needs filling in order to afford them the information which they desire. But if these hon. gentlemen some time during the recess will come to me for information, I will endeavour to the best of my ability to fill the vacuum which I know is there.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


John Wesley Edwards: I will do what I can to help them out and give them the information which they so much desire.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I think the expression of the hon. member is hardly in keeping with the dignity or decorum of the House.


Ernest Lapointe: It is all right from him.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Take it back.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order.


John Wesley Edwards: To what particular expression, Mr. Speaker, do you refer?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I think the hon. member used an expression with reference to members of this House which is not in keeping with the dignity or decorum of the House, and I think the hon. member would be well advised if he would withdraw it. The expression in question was the reference to certain hon. gentlemen as " having a void in their craniums."


An hon. MEMBER:: It is all right.


John Wesley Edwards: I did not notice at the time that I was saying anything that might be regarded as contrary to the rules. If I did so, I will withdraw the remark.


An hon. MEMBER:: The hon. member does not know any better.


John Wesley Edwards: I am very glad, indeed, to know and to have it demonstrated to me beyond any doubt that the statement I made in regard to the unfurnished condition of their mental attics was incorrect.


Ernest Lapointe: Don't be too witty now.


John Wesley Edwards: There are gentlemen on the other side of the House


John Wesley Edwards: My hon. friend


An hon. MEMBER:: Say it in French.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I must put it to hon. members, whether a debate can be rightly and properly conducted under such conditions as have prevailed for the last three or four minutes.


John Wesley Edwards: Do I understand, Mr. Speaker, that your remarks in that particular instance are directed to this side of the House?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: To the whole House.


John Wesley Edwards: With all due deference, I see no particular reason for the application of your warning to hon. gentlemen on this side. My hon. friend from Chambly and Yercheres asked me not to be humourous


Joseph Archambault: I said "human."


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order.


John Wesley Edwards: I would not presume to undertake to play the part of a humourist 47
or clown so long as my hon. friend is in the House.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


John Wesley Edwards: I know that I should only run a poor second to any hon. friend in that regard, and therefore I will leave him a clear field.


Joseph Archambault: An also-ran.


John Wesley Edwards: Mr. Speaker, we will have a further opportunity of discussing this particular clause in committee. Once more, allow me to say that I disassociate myself entirely from the remarks made by the hon. member (Mr. Pardee) that we should lay aside all of those things whmh had their influence when the War-time Elections Act and the Military Voters' Act were passed. In considering the future of Canada may I be permitted to say that in my judgment we should he mote particular in handing out the franchise than we have ever been in the past? May I say that in my .udgment one of the great weaknesses in our Franchise Acts in this country is that we have opened the door too wide. We have cared nothing whether a man understood a word of the English language or not, or whether he understood anything of British principles or of our constitution. So long as he was twenty-one years of age he was allowed to vote and so enjoyed as free an exercise of the franchise as a man who thoroughly understood the principles of Government under which we live.
'In my judgment that is wrong and I think it has been a weakness in our legislation in this country. If those people come to Canada from other countries they do so because they believe the conditions here are better than the conditions in the country of their birth. That being the case I say that they should in some way show that they possess some knowledge of our country and of our principles of government before they are put on an equal footing with people who were born and raised in Canada and upon whom in a time of crisis the responsibility of "carrying on" devolves. I say, Sir, with respect to any person or to any class of people in Canada who during the last four or five years proved by their attitude that they were not prepared to assume all the responsibilities of citizenship, that I am not ready for one, simply because the war is over, to tell them that they can come in and have as much voice in the administration of the affairs of this country for the next five or ten



years as those persons who assumed and worthily bore their full share of responsibility. That is my attitude and I believe it will appeal with greater force to the people of Canada than the attitude which has been stated by my hon. friend (Mr. Pardee) and so vigorously endorsed by those who sit around him.


Mr. A. R. McMASTER (Brome):: I will not attempt, Mr. Speaker, to answer bitter words with bitter words. The occasion which calls us together this evening is of far too great importance for us to take up the country's time in bandying doubtful compliments across the floor of the Chamber. I rise for the purpose of supporting the spirit of the remarks offered by the hon. member for West Lambton (Mr. Pardee) and I would like to draw the attention of hon. members to the manner in which other countries that have suffered just as much as we have-aye, and far more-in the conflict which has closed are treating this subject of after the war reconstruction. This Bill is a part of after the war reconstruction, for what we are discussing tonight is the charter under which Canadian society shall operate in the future.
Let us turn for a moment to Italy. I suppose there are few nations in the world that have suffered as Italy has suffered under the awful tyranny imposed upon her for generations by Austria. During the war Italy suffered frightfully; her northern provinces, some of the fairest she possesses, were overwhelmed by Austrian and German troops. A poor country with a tremendous debt before the war, her debt is now of crushing magnitude. Life will be harder and more bitter on account of the war for the population of Italy for years to come. But what is Italy doing to-day, Mr. Speaker? Italy in her poverty is taking tens of thousands of starving Austrian children and entertaining them in her own homes. That is the spirit in which the uoild can be reconstructed for a better future; but the spirit shown by some hon. rcembtrs is just the opposite.
What is Great Britain doing? I would suppose all will admit that the part played in the war by Great Britain, by those little islands in the North sea, has been just as fine as the part played by Canada. I would imagine that all hon. members will agree with me when I state that the losses of young British manhood have been as heavy, aye, heavier than our own. Why, Scotland, the place from which my forbears came, has lost such a proportion of

her young manhood as would make the angels weep. What is Great Britain doing? To-day perhaps the one solvent country in Europe, through the Economic Council of the Allies at Paris she is proposing to make advances to Germany in order to allow that country to get on its feet.


John Allister Currie: That is not votes.


Andrew Ross McMaster: No, but that is the
spirit which should animate us to-day. Now, in that spirit I shall ask all hon. members to approach this matter-not animated by hate, for, as the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Andrews) said the other day, we cannot build up a new world on hate; we must build it up on love. Is it a strange doctrine to say that one must love his enemies? It is a doctrine that has been preached for two hundred years-:


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh. Two
thousand years.


Andrew Ross McMaster: We may well laugh,
because although it has been preached for two thousand years it has never been followed in international politics. The great fundamental reason for the Gethsemane through which humanity has passed during the last five years was that those principles were not adopted. And I ask this House and this country to approach this subject in the proper spirit-and we all know what that proper spirit is.
Let me ask this question also. Did those in our community from whom the right to vote is taken by this Bill-our people of Austrian origin-behave themselves badly during that period? I cannot speak from personal experience. I know there are very few German or Austrian people in Montreal, and there are none in my constituency; but as far as I know they gave no succour to the enemy, but behaved themselves in seemly and proper fashion; and from the information I have received I understand that in other parts of the country those belonging especially to the Austrian nation, Hungarians and Bohemians, were not only not anti-British or anti-Ally, they were pro-Ally, and volunteered in large numbers to fight for the Allies. Have there been plots in Canada by our German population? I do not think so. I believe I should have heard of them had there been any.
But, after all, I ask: How are we going to build up a Canadian people? It seems to me that there are only two courses to pursue:	If a man is not a desirable citi-

zen, he should be asked on fair terms to leave the country; and if he is a desirable citizen, then he should be given all the privileges and responsibilities of citizenship. I know no other way by which you can build up a great nation.
Before I sit down I wish to deal further with the principle of the Bill. By section 30, subsection one (g) it is provided that:
Persons who, by the laws of any province in Canada, are disqualified from voting for a member of the Legislative Assembly of such province in respect of race, shall not be qualified to vote in such province under the provisions of this Act.
To this provision I take strong exception. I do not think it is wise, nor do I think it is honourable. This is our Act-the Act of the Dominion of Canada. Naturalization papers are given by this Government-the federal Government. Once we give naturalization to people, no matter whence they come, they must be given full rights, and those rights include the right inherent in Canadian citizenship-the right to vote. We cannot have different grades of citizenship. What is this provision aimed at? It is because certain provinces, for reason which perhaps appears just to themselves, have withheld the provincial franchise from men and women of Oriental origin. Now, Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to discuss the wisdom or unwisdom of having orientals settle in this country, for it is not a question on which I would feel qualified to speak without giving it profound study. But that is not the question affected by the Bill. What the Bill affects is Canadian citizens, and the proposal is to take from Canadian naturalized citizens the right to vote,-the most precious right of citizenship. And when you consider, Sir, who are being disfranchised under this clause, its ignobleness, if I may use the expression, is startling. Who protected our Pacific. coast when the war was on? The cruisers of Great Britain's ally, Japan. Who are being disfranchised by this Bill? The former subjects of the Mikado. Is that gratitude? A certain political and moral philosopher has said: What is not good morals cannot be good politics. This is not good morals for it is base ingratitude; and it cannot be regarded as good politics.
I am no Imperialist, Mr. Speaker, but I have a very warm regard for the Mother Country, and a strong desire to help her in every way I can, and I say that an Act such as this passed by the Parliament of the second, if not the first, of the members of the Britannic Commonwealth, the Dominion of Canada, cannot but tend to hurt the 47i
relationship which should exist between Great Britain and her great Eastern ally, Japan.
And who also is attacked by this Bill? Our fellow-British subjects from India. What did they do in the war? They, of another race, of another colour, sent-from a population of teeming millions, it is true-into what was essentially a white man's war,
1,500,000	men. They fought on the Western front; they fought in Egypt; they fought in Mesopotamia,-but they are not to vote in British Columbia. Is that right? Oh, you may say, you must not offend the feelings of British Columbia. I do not want to offend the feelings of British Columbia.


Mr. HOCKEN:: You are doing it.


Andrew Ross McMaster: The member for West Toronto says that I am doing it. When the war broke out a Home Rule Bill had been passed in the Imperial Parliament, but in order not to offend Ulster that Home Rule Bill was postponed; it was put into the cupboard and allowed to get stale. What was the result of that desire not to offend Ulster? It was the rebellion of Easter, 1916, and it is the existence of the Irish question, fhe greatest and the most serious question that faces the British Empire today. You have to offend sometimes in order to do what is right. Surely the member for West Toronto has never hesitated to offend when he thought that to do so was necessary to the accomplishing of something that he thought good.
But, Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to conclude my remarks in a tone of bitterness or on the plane of conflict. I ask that the members of this House consider this Bill seriously, carefully and well, remembering that when you have your enemy in the dust, to rub his face in the dirt, or, as this Bill proposes, to rub his thirty-second cousin's face in the dirt, is poor business, poor politics, poor statesmanship.
Mr. WILLIAM D. EULER (Waterloo North): Mr. Speaker it had been my intention to discuss certain phases of this Bill in Committee of the Whole, but the debate has taken a certain turn which impels to discuss the matter just a little more broadly than I could discuss it within the rules under any clause in committee and it is for that reason that I am going to make my observations now.
It is not my intention, although the provocation is great, to answer insult with insult. It is my intention to debate a certain principle, or the violation of a certain

principle, in this Bill from the point of view entirely of logic and justice and fair play. If I cannot convince the Government and members on the other side of the justice of my argument in a reasonable and logical way, I am assuredly not going to make an appeal to sentiment, because I think the time for that has pretty well passed.
Before I proceed further, may I say that I hope the Government will use the machinery which it is about to provide, and in connection with which certain amendments will, I trust, be made, to give the people of this country an opportunity of using it in the election of a Parliament that properly represents them.
I shall confine myself entirely to those clauses of the Bill which most closely touch the people in the riding which I have the honour to represent. I may say frankly that I am going to discuss to-night the attempt to disfranchise British subjects of late enemy origin,-or, if you like, of British subjects in Canada who are of German or Austrian birth. And I want to say that I am not on my feet to make a plea for the alien. I am not going to make a plea for any one; I am merely going to demand a square deal for men who are British subjects and good citizens of Canada.
I think, Sir, it is also in order for me to point out that in its application, the word " alien " has been abused in this House ever since I entered it. Hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House-perhaps hon. gentlemen on this side have occasionally done so-have frequently spoken in debate of " aliens," when they meant men of alien origin. I contend that when a man has become a naturalized British subject he is no longer an alien; he is in very truth a British subject, and entitled to the privileges of a British subject.
I realize, Sir, that in discussing these particular clauses in the Bill I am in a somewhat peculiar position. I appreciate that perhaps I am the only member of this House whose ancestors sprang from the race with which we have been at war. As is probably well known


Lucien Cannon: The member for Edmonton.


Mr. EULER:: I have no knowledge of any other member of the House who is' of the same descent as I am. But whether there is another or not, I want to say that on that score I have no apology whatever to make, because before I am through I think I shall be able to show that, after all, 
I am in very good company. I should like to say also that I was born in this country, ' and that I am a Canadian. I would like hon. members as they listen to me to-night to remember, if possible, for the purposes of this debate that I am a Canadian as they are, and to give me credit, as I give credit to them, for a desire to serve my country, Canada. If they are able to do that I shall appreciate it.
Sir, I had hoped that the Franchise Bill when it was introduced into this House would be free from the objectionable clauses which obtained in the War-time Elections Act. It is not my purpose to indulge in any lengthy recriminations with regard to that Act. It has been described as a blot on the statute book of Canada. For my part I should be glad to see it relegated to the limbo of forgotten things, together with other scraps of paper, and other broken agreements. But I did hope after the minister spoke the other day that the Bill would be almost entirely free from the disfranchising clauses of the War-time Elections Act.
I know that the impression prevails throughout the country, fostered by the press, and justifiably so, I believe from the information that we had, that the Franchise Bill, which is now before the House, is a very fair measure, and that perhaps very little fault can be found with it. But a careful study of the Bill, together with a study of some of the provisions of the Naturalization Act passed last year, discloses the fact that this Bill will disfranchise many more British subjects than were disfranchised under the War-time Elections Act. Indeed, I think it is almost true to say that while the War-time Elections Act disfranchised its thousands, this Act as it stands will disfranchise its tens of thousands.


Hugh Guthrie: Under what provision of this Act does my hon. friend justify the statement he has just made?


William Daum Euler: I am coming to that, and if I am wrong I shall be very glad to be corrected, and my remarks will come to a conclusion very quickly. I am going on with this more particularly now because the charges made by my hon. friend from West Lambton (Mr. Pardee) were much the same as I am about to make, though perhaps my remarks may be made from another viewpoint. No exception was taken to the statements of the hon. member for West Lambton. In fact, hon. gentlemen opposite seemed to believe that what

he charged was the intent and meaning of the Act.
To make my point clear I want to state certain definite facts. The first is expressed in the Naturalization Act of 1919, section 11:
The wife of a British subject shall be deemed to be a British subject.
That is all that is necessary for me to quote for the purpose of my argument. Secondly, the children of a naturalized alien, being minors, both male and female, become naturalized quite legally with the naturalization of the father. The result therefore is that the naturalization of a father of alien origin naturalizes his wife and his children of both sexes. I think that is the case. At least, that was the law up until the Act of 1914, and even since that Act was passed the children are still naturalized under the law, provided they are mentioned in the naturalization certificate. That I understand is the purport of the law.
The next fact I would mention is this: The Bill gives the franchise to women; that is well known. Secondly-and this is one of the most important facts of all-before these wives and children of naturalized aliens can be permitted to vote, although they are in very truth British subjects- and I want to emphasize that-the Bill before the House states very definitely that they must obtain personal naturalization. I will read the section for the purposes of record. Subsection2 of section 29 says:
For the purposes of this Act, the allegiance or nationality of a person, as it was at the birth of such person shall be deemed incapable of being changed, or of having been changed, merely by reason or in consequence of marriage or change of allegiance or naturalization of any other person,-
Such other person being the father, I presume.
-or otherwise than by personal naturalization of such first mentioned person.
I think that makes it perfectly clear that all these British subjects, being the wives or grown-up children of duly naturalized men of alien origin, cannot vote under this Bill unless they become personally naturalized through the Secretary of State. Finally, and this is just as important as what I have already mentioned, the Naturalization Act of 1919 provides (Part II, section 8, subsection 4, (b):
No certificate of naturalization shall, before the expiration of a period of ten years after the termination of the present war, be granted in Canada, to any subject of a country which at the time of the passing of this Act was at war with His Majesty.
Then follow certain exceptions. Thus the joint effect of these clauses is to disfranchise thousands of women and men of German or Austrian birth. Now if there is any escape from what I have said, it must be through an interpretation of this clause. The clause is not absolutely clear to me, but it is certainly capable of being interpreted in the way I have indicated. If I have interpreted it incorrectly I should be very glad if the Solicitor General would set me right.


Hugh Guthrie: The last part of my hon. friend's interpretation I think is absolutely correct. The Naturalization Act of 1919 provides that no subject of any enemy state shall be permitted to be naturalized in this country for a period of ten years after the close of the war. That would include Austrians, Germans, Bulgars, and Turks. They will not under the present Bill be entitled to vote, nor will they under the Naturalization Act be entitled to become British subjects for a period of ten years from the end of the war. That is correct.


William Daum Euler: I think the minister has missed my point. The point I am trying to make is this: British subjects, naturalized in Canada by virtue of the naturalization of some one else, either husband or father, must under the Bill before the House obtain personal naturalization in order to vote, and my interpretation is that they cannot obtain naturalization because of the clause I have just read. Is that correct?


Hugh Guthrie: They cannot if they are Austrians, Germans, Bulgars or Turks. That is absolutely correct.


William Daum Euler: Exactly. I am referring to naturalized British subjects of Austrian or German birth who have become naturalized by virtue of their fathers' .or husbands' naturalization. I am correct then in stating that people originally of these races, though now British subjects-and I want again to emphasize that point-cannot obtain personal naturalization under the Act of 1919.


Hugh Guthrie: No, they cannot for ten years.


William Daum Euler: I am quite sure they cannot, because I took occasion to investigate and made inquiry of the Under-Secretary of State. I put this question to him: "What would you do if a British subject, of German or Austrian birth, who had become naturalized by reason of the naturalization of father

or husband, applied for personal naturalization?" He replied "Naturalization would be refused." So that point seems perfectly clear.
Let me review these points. We have, I think, in the Dominion of Canada, about
115,000	of male naturalized citizens of former enemy alien origin. My figures may not be exactly correct, but they are nearly so. These people are British subjects, although of German or Austrian birth. Secondly, this Bill says they cannot vote unless they become personally naturalized. Thirdly, the Naturalization Act forbids such naturalization. Therefore it is a fact that if the Bill passes as drafted, probably something like 100,000 British subjects in Canada will be deprived of the right to vote at the next election, and perhaps for a period of ten years altogether.
' When the Naturalization Act was piloted through the House last session by the Solicitor General (Hon. Mr. Guthrie), it will be recalled that I objected very strongly to the ten-year clause, and made the argument then that credit should be given at least to those people who had already lived in Canada for ten, fifteen, thirty, forty or even fifty years. I was unable to carry my point, although as a matter of fact the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden) said he was in sympathy with the stand I had taken in view of the fact that both he and the President of the Privy Council (Hon. Mr. Rowell), had so expressed themselves at the Peace conference in Paris. However, for various reasons, the suggestion was not adopted and I was unsuccessful in securing the result I desired. At that time it did seem to me that the reasons given for failure to adopt my suggestion were trivial and insufficient; and if I were of a suspicious nature, which I am not, I would be apt to surmise that the action of the Government last session in placing that ten-year clause in the Naturalization Act was committed with a pre-vision of what was to follow in the Franchise Bill which we have now before us. I do not say that I believe this to have been the case, but 1 say that if I were suspicious I would be apt to think that it was then the intention to disfranchise these people.


Hugh Guthrie: My hon. friend must remember the discussion of last year, and he no doubt knows that the Bill which this House passed then is the accepted model in all British colonies, being the Act in force in the Motherland, and applies to

British citizenship, not only in Canada but through the British Empire. The ten-year clause in the Imperial Act, which we followed.


William Daum Euler: In reply to that statement of the hon. gentleman, let me say that the Prime Minister on the floor of the House, after I had drawn his attention to his own speech at the Peace conference, which he admitted embodied his sentiments in this regard, said:
I assure my hon. friend that I will make representations to the British Government with respect to the matter with a view to having such modifications made in the Imperial Act as will permit of reasonable modifications In our own.
I communicated with the Prime Minister, not long ago, inquiring of him whether he had done as he had promised, and he replied that he was taking the matter up with the Solicitor General. I am informed, however, that nothing whatever has been done in that direction, and I am forced to the conclusion that there never was any intention that anything should be done.
Now, Mr. Speaker, if it were worth while, we might compare the present Franchise Bill with the War-time Elections Act. In the War-time Elections Act there was not the degree of disfranchising that will-occur under this Act, by which every woman of German or Austrian birth will be deprived of a vote in the coming elections. And if I may be allowed a personal remark, I may say that this Act, if it passes, will disfranchise my mother, although she has lived in Canada as a good Canadian citizen, having reared good Canadians, for sixty years. It will deprive of the franchise all women who have lived in this country for many years, but who were born in Germany and were naturalized as a result of the naturalization of their fathers. But observe the injustice of this, Mr. Speaker. Many of those whom this Act will disfranchise have actually voted in past years, having been duly naturalized British subjects. Under this Act, if it is read with the Naturalization Act, they are deprived of the right to vote by reason of the ten-year clause. I know that there are in the riding I represent men who have lived in that locality during the past few years perfectly secuie and serene in the belief that their franchise would not be imperilled, because they had complied with the requirements of the law in that they had become naturalized with the naturalization of their fathers. They have no remedy now. There can be no doubt in the mind

of any hon. gentleman that if these men had for one moment suspected that a law would be passed depriving them of the franchise, unless they obtained personal naturalization, they would long ago have taken steps to obtain such naturalization. Now, under the law, it is utterly impossible for them to do so. The Acting Solicitor General this afternoon spoke of anomalies which might arise if certain suggestions were adopted. I think one of them was that if the women of Quebec had not been given the franchise we should have the peculiar position of a woman of the province of Quebec being able to stand as a candidate for Parliament and yet not have the vote. I wonder if we aTe not in exactly that position to-day. These women and men who are disfranchised are still British subjects although they have not got the vote. Now Sir, the requirement of a candidate for the Canadian House of Commons is that he or she shall be a British subject of the age of twenty-one years. It may be that my constituency in its wisdom will select some good honest Canadian woman of German birth, a British subject, and will send that woman to the Canadian Parliament although she herself will have no vote. There are other anomalies in the Act as it stands, and as I believe that the minister was sincere this afternoon when he said that if necessary corrections were pointed out to him he would adopt them, I think after I have indicated some of these anomalies he will feel inclined to effect some changes.
This clause will enfranchise men who could not vote in the war-time election; it will enfranchise those men who were disfranchised in the last election if they had been naturalized within the last fifteen years and were of enemy origin. It will disfranchise men who had votes in the wartime elections. Now, you have this peculiar situation:	Men of alien origin who could
not vote under war conditions will be allowed to vote now that we have peace, and men who were allowed to vote in war time will not he permitted this privilege in the future. That, surely, is an anomaly of the first order. I desire to refer to another important point. I have not read the Act as closely as I should like to have done, but so far as I can see there is absolutely no provision giving the franchise to women of German or Austrian birth, British subjects, who gave their sons to the war, even if those sons were killed. I find no provision enabling such women to vote; and in reply to some statements made by
another hon. member, I beg to give to the House just a little bit of proof that the German Canadians, British subjects in Canada, were not quite so remiss in their duty in this war as some people would have us suppose.
I have in my hand a list of men who were killed in the war, all of whom came from the city of Kitchener, or the town of Waterloo, and possibly a few from other parts of the riding. I shall not read all the names hut I am going to read some of them, and I think that when you hear me pronounce them you will have no doubt whatever as to their racial origin. The first is Lieutenant Harry Snyder, a young man whom I had the honour to instruct when I was a public school teacher in the schools of what was then Berlin, now the city of Kitchener. That young man enlisted, entered the air force, was some time later reported as missing and has never been heard of since. I spoke to a brother of his last Sunday just before leaving for Ottawa. I mentioned the Franchise Act and this disfranchising provision. He said to me: "It will disfranchise my mother who gave her son." That is one case. Then there are Private Zapfe, and Private Schreiter, Private J. Gehl, Private Knechtel, Private G. Stuffer, who is a descendant of the Mennonites of whom we have heard so much; Private A. . Sehierholtz, Private George Strub, Private J. Gerbig, Private Y. Hummel, Private J. Diefen-becker, Private H. Rosenberger, Private H. Treusch, Private S. Uffelman, Private Herman Gross, Private Clayton Fenner, Private Steckenraider, and Lieutenant W. Bauer. These men gave up their lives fighting in the armies of Canada. I do not know to what extent that clause will affect their mothers. I do know it will affect the mothers in some cases at least and I believe it will affect the sisters of some of these men. I referred a moment ago to the fact that some twenty years ago I had the privilege of teaching in the public schools in the city of Kitchener. Besides teaching the ordinary subjects of the public' school course, I did what I could to inculcate in those boys and girls a measure of patriotism and of faith in British institutions. I taught those boys and girls that British law and institutions stood for justice and fair play. I believed then what I taught. After the record of the last four or five years and sometimes as I have listened to speeches and statements made in this House, that faith of mine has occasionally wavered and as a result of certain incidents has continued to do so. If

that clause is retained in the Bill, certainly my confidence in the justice of the British people in this House will not be strengthened.
The boys and girls Of the city of Kitchener-and I speak particularly of that city because I live there and because there is in that city a large admixture of people oi German origin,-are still being taught to be good citizens. They are told that Canada is a progressive country. They are told that the women of Canada have been given the franchise. I have no doubt that those boys and girls come from homes in whieh there are fathers and mothers who, perhaps, forty, fifty or sixty years ago, were born in Germany or Austria. : They will tell the mothers that they also have received the franchise. When election day comes the mother will have to learn that under this law she has no vote. The father goes to vote because he is enfranchised again; he has his personal naturalization papers. I can fancy that the girls and boys will urge the mother also to go and vote because, I believe, our public schools are teaching the children that one of the greatest privileges and duties they may have is the right to exercise the franchise. The mother must say to them that she cannot vote. The inevitable question comes: "Why not"? The answer is that because thirty, forty or fifty years ago she was born in Germany or Austria. " But," says the boy, "father was born in Germany and he can vote; why not mother"? Do you think that any reply the father or mother can make will satisfy the sense of justice of those Canadian boys and girls? What will be the effect upon those boys? Will they despise the mother who is insulted, or will they look with contempt upon the law and the Government which did the wrong?
Let me take another concrete case. A father and a mother came from Germany, for example, thirty years ago, both of them being, we will say, thirty years of age. They brought with them a boy of five and a girl of three. In four or five years the father obtains. Canadian naturalization in the regular way. In the course of two or three years another boy and another daughter are born to this couple. We have now the passing of this Act with an election following. The young people who were born in Canada are British subjects; the older ones are also British subjects. The younger ones do not require to be naturalized personally because they were horn on Canadian soil. They have now reached voting age. The older son has been voting for twelve or four-

teen years. An election comes on and under this Act you have this condition; that the father, the younger son and the younger daughter go to the polls and vote while the mother and the older son, who in the past has been voting, and the older sister, are compelled to remain at home. In addition to that, it is not at all a far-fetched Suggestion that the younger son, whose mother, older sister and older brother are disfranchised, may have fought in the war as a volunteer recruit in the Canadian army.
I think it would be impossible to conceive of anything more illogical, more unfair, and, if I may use a word that is unparliamentary-that is more tricky or more calculated to destroy faith in the national decency and honour than this proposal. The Wartime Elections Act was bad. But in the War-time Elections Act of 1917 the entry was made by the front door and the right of British subjects was taken away openly. By the Bill we have now before us, entrance is made by the back door of the Naturalization Act with the apparent idea that the plunder may be abstracted before those who are robbed know what has happened to them.
Mr. Speaker, there must be reasons for this legislation and I can conceive of only three, one of which perhaps I must already discard. The first one is that possibly the Government did not quite appreciate what the joint effect of these two clauses would be. I can hardly believe that to be the case because apparently the effect is quite intentional, being so admitted by the Acting Solicitor General. The second possible reason is that the Government felt that these people should be disfranchised in the interests of Canada itself. And the third reason that occurs to me is that these people are disfranchised in order to gain a political advantage.
Now let us examine the second. What can be said or has been said, to show that the granting of the franchise to these British subjects could prejudice the interests of Canada? The war is over, and I do not think it is the intention of the Canadian Government to prepare for another war with Germany or Austria or any other country; at all events I devoutly hope not. I do not see, under those conditions, how the vote of these women, cast in a Canadian election for members of the House of Commons, could possibly be injurious to Canada.
Let us examine the conduct of the people who are affected by this law. The question has been asked by hon, gentlemen on this

side, how have these people 'behaved? I can speak only for those ol North Waterloo, and while I am very well awaTe that a great many comments have been made about that blessed portion of this Dominion, a great deal of what has been said has not been true. If I might again be permitted a personal remark I would say that in the first year of the war I happened to have the honour of being mayor of the city of Kitchener. That city was one of the very first to organize -a branch of the Canadian Patriotic Fund, and its people, who are largely of German origin, voluntarily contributed individually and through the municipality, at that time a larger sum per capita than did any other centre in Canada. They gave liberally also to the Red Cross, the British Red Cross Society, and they subscribed most generously to the Victory Loan, as the ex-Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White) will know. Again, in 1918 I think, the riding of North Waterloo subscribed a larger per capita percentage of the loan than did any other riding in the province of Ontario with the exception of those situated in the larger centres of population. Further, the number of voluntary enlistments compares favourably with those of many other parts of Canada.
If these people were disloyal, if they were acting as traitors-as one hon. gentleman opposite suggested-how is it that we have had no prosecutions? I may be wrong but I am pretty well acquainted with the facts in the county of Waterloo, and especially in the riding of North Waterloo, and I cannot recall that there was even one successful prosecution of a British subject of the kind I am discussing for treasonable utterances or anything that could be construed as disloyal. I want to say also that there are a great many people in that county who, if anything of the kind had been practised, would very soon have taken action, and punishment would have followed. Speaking of internments, British subjects, of course, could not be interned without a trial. There were about eight thousand internments in the whole Dominion, but with the exception of one, so far as I know, the persons interned were all alien enemies who are not the subject of this debate at all. In this connection I want it to be clearly understood that the people of whom I am speaking to-night are not alien enemies; they are people of alien birth but they are British subjects. Of these there was not one convicted, not one man was interned. I should perhaps make an exception. There were ^even
internments from the city of Kitchener out of about 8,000 for the whole of Canada, a fairly creditable record I think. Among those seven there were of course, no women, but one man was wrongfully interned, he being a British subject naturalized in New Zealand. Although this man was a British subject, with ample proof of naturalization from the Secretary of State of New Zealand, he was sent to the internment camp and kept there for three or four years. He was never accorded a trial, and finally, in spite of his protests, was deported to Germany but was later brought back by the Canadian Government who recognized and realized their error. I know that in the county of Waterloo, in the county of Perth, in Oxford possibly, in Bruce and Huron and Renfrew and in many sections of the Canadian West, there are thousands, almost hundreds of thousands, of the people of whom I speak now. To-day under this legislation they have no country. Surely the first privilege of a British subject is the franchise itself; and yet under this Bill the Government to-day makes outcasts of men who are innocent. They punish men who have committed no offence, because, although offences have been charged no definite statements have been given by hon. gentleman opposite who spoke before me. No proofs have been given of the broad statements which they have made with regard to the acts of treason committed by these people. If the Bill passes in its present form, this Government points the finger of scorn at a hundred thousand good Canadians and cries "Unclean." Why? Because these men and women by an accident of birth came from Germany or Austria and because they were trustful enough to accept the invitation and the promise of agents of the Government of Canada -that if they came to this" country and discharged their duty as citizens should, they would be granted all the rights and privileges of British citizenship.
Mr. Speaker, I intended to read some extracts from some of the papers in connection with this phase of the question but I will dispense with that. But, I do want to say that the whole spirit of the clause which I condemn is wrong. We have heard a good deal of the spirit of t.he bon entente that should exist between the people of Quebec and -the people of Ontario I think it is right that such a spirit should prevail, but why cannot the same spirit be extended to the small minority that lives in other provinces of Canada? And, Sir, I want to place on record my convic-

.tion that in the treatment of most of these people of former alien enemy birth, Germans .and Austrians, a sad mistake was made by many Canadiaets and by the Dominion Government. I was going to say that some of it might he excused-no not excused, but explained by reason of the prejudice and the sufferings arising out of the w.ar. But, Sir, if there had been something more of trust and a little less of suspicion it would have been very, very much better for this country. I want to say-and I know whereof I speak-that among the people of North Waterloo of German or Austrian origin-although we have not many Austrians there-there is no love of militarism and that most of them came from Europe to escape from that very thing. I want to say further that I do not believe that the common people in any part of .the world desire war, because war means the .slaughter of their sons. I do not believe that is true of any people, and it is certainly not true of the people of North Waterloo. They hate war. They want to he good Canadians,-if you will only allow them to be so.
Mr. Speaker, the Government of this country brought these people here, and they came in good faith, believing what was told them, that Canada was a democracy that welcomed all who would share her responsibilities. They toiled and helped to build up this country, including the county of Waterloo from which I come, as did also the Mennonites of whom we have heard so much. They identified themselves with us, their children attended our schools, and they absorbed our national ideals. In very truth they became of us, and we recognized the fact by entering into the sacred compact of citizenship with them. They have carried out their part of the bargain. Can an honourable nation do any less than that? If these people disobey the law they are as liable to punishment as the native born, their responsibilities are in no way lightened, and their property and industry must contribute to the national treasury.
Some eight or ten days ago I enjoyed a speech delivered in this House by the Acting Prime Minister (Sir George Poster), when he made a plea for greater tolerance as between hon. members on the two sides of the House. I appreciated very much what he said. Before I resume my seat I would like to say to him, if I may, Mr. Speaker, and if a younger man may with propriety say this to an older man: That kindness and trust and charity are infinitely more pow-

erful than the degrading influences of suspicion-influences, which .are exemplified in the Bill before us to-day And I would say to him that the harvest which he can expect from the sowing anew of the seed of racial hatred will not redound to the advantage of Canada if carried out in this Bill. Canada is populated by people of diverse races. It will always be so, and you can only weld them into one great Canadian nationality by the process of education and by inculcating and applying the principles of justice and equality, and the square deal.
I do not dare to hope, Sir, that anything I may have said will induce the Government to strike out this clause, but if they do so it would he, not an act of generosity but an act of justice, for which I think they would receive full credit. But whether or not they take that course, when this Bill reaches the committee stage, if no one else moves in that direction, I certainly will move for the striking out of this disfranchising clause.


Ernest Lapointe: We will be with you.


William Daum Euler: In conclusion, Sir, I would like to say that in the ranks of the Allied nations, notably in those of the United States, there were thousands upon thousands of men of German or Austrian ancestry, and many of them held positions of high authority in that country. Yet I do not believe that the trust reposed in them was ever betrayed. But, Sir, I would like to come nearer home. From Waterloo, and from Perth, from Oxford and from Renfrew, from Bruce and Huron, and from the Great West there came hundreds of men to fight in the Canadian army, many of whom died on the battlefields of France. To-day I submit the honour of Canada is in the hands of this Parliament. I ask you not to insult the memory of these men through an affront to their sisters and brothers and to the mothers that bore them.


Mr. LEVI THOMSON (Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, one clause of this Bill has been very freely discussed. I have very little to say with regard to it, but I wish to join with the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. Euler) in stating that I think it is very illogical-indeed, it is still more illogical than he has shown it to be in that particular. We usually speak of what we ourselves know especially. Although there are not many people in my constituency of alien enemy birth, a number of such men homesteaded there years ago and became naturalized, they brought their children with them, many of them very young, and

I think I am correct in saying that probably more would be disfranchised among those families than those who are now entitled to vote, and yet those so disfranchised are the very people who should be entitled to vote. Those who are now entitled to vote are the people who, if any, should be disfranchised. If among those people there are any with German or Austrian sympathies they are those who had reached manhood before they settled in this country. Their children who have been educated in our Canadian schools, have acquired Canadian habits and imbibed Canadian ideals, and surely there is no disloyalty among them. If there is any disloyalty in that district it is among those who under this Act are entitled to vote. I do not know what will be said with regard to the rights of those people, but it seems to me that if a man who came from Germany or Austria is entitled to exercise the franchise, there is no good reason why his wife should not be also entitled. She is as much a British subject as he is; and his children, who were minors at the time he was naturalized, are British subjects just as much as he is. It seems to me very illogical if we disfranchise one part of the family without disfranchising the other, especially when we disfranchise those members of the family who are certainly much better Canadians than their parents who are enfranchised.
I would like to draw the attention of the Solicitor General (Mr. Guthrie) to some other features of the Bill. By subsection (E) of section 79 the agent of a candidate must publish the list of all those who contribute anything towards the election expenses. That, I think, is a move in the right direction, and I would like to congratulate the Solicitor General on it. I am sorry, however, that he did not go a little further. It seems to me that while he was making that provision he should at the same time have provided that a list should also be published of those who contributed to the party funds at any stage of the game.
The leader of the Opposition made a remark which was apparently very well received on both sides of the House with regard to the necessity of so legislating that the people would have faith in this Parliament and in its doings. Faith is the most necessary thing in this life. You cannot succeed in any line of business without faith; you cannot carry on any commercial undertakings without faith. Indeed, without faith we can do nothing; without faith in each other we live but a life of misery. Accordingly, we must so
act that the people shall have faith in us; otherwise we cannot make the progress that we should. We must not only be entitled to the confidence of the people; we must also have that confidence. Any one who has been around the country a little knows that campaign funds are regarded with a great' deal of suspicion; in fact, there is nothing of which the people are so suspicious. I do not mean the funds that go to the agent of the candidate or to the candidate himself in order to bring about his election; I mean the campaign funds that are contributed to the party. The Solicitor General has asked for suggestions. I suggest that he go a little farther than he has gone in section 79 and compel the publication of campaign funds of every description, including funds paid to the party or contributed to any association or group of candidates. If he does that he will accomplish more in the way of inspiring public confidence in Parliament than he would be doing in carrying out the step proposed; though I do commend him for the step that he has taken; it is a step in the right direction.	.
I am sorry that the Solicitor General is not in his seat; I wanted to direct his attention to another point. In schedule A to section 32, rule (14) provides:
The onus of substantiating sufficient prima facie ground to strike off any name shall be upon the applicant.	,
The word " applicant " in that schedule is used about a dozen times, but outside of that particular section, " applicant " refers always to the man who is applying to be put on the list. The reference here would certainly seem to be to the appellant rather than to the applicant. The appellant is nowhere referred to as an applicant. The appeal is never referred to as an application; it is referred to as an appeal. If this section is allowed to stand as it is, there will be some confusion; but it would be quite a simple manner to change the word " applicant " to " appellant ".
I again emphasize the point which I have made in regard to the necessity for extending the provision set forth in section 79 for the submission of a statement respecting election expenses, so that it will require every party, every group of* politicians, every one in connection with such party or group of politicians, to make public the sources of funds contributed for all purposes in connection with party work.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Michael Clark: 
Mr. H. A. MACKIE (East Edmonton):: As I listened this afternoon to the speech delivered by the Acting Solicitor General I was expecting to hear a statement in regard to the motive and reason underlying Clause 29, and I had hoped that by this time some one would have risen on the Government side to give some information that would justify that clause as it stands. That the speech of the Acting Solicitor General was magnificent in its ensemble no one can deny, but that the whole Act was built on the principle of fairness and simplicity is a statement that I challenge both on the ground of the facts contained in the Act and the other documents to which the Act refers. So far as I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, no one in this House will attack my conduct as being inconsistent, because when I was a candidate for the Con-

servative party and was consulted as to whether disfranchisement should take place under the War-time Elections Act I protested. I believe, however, that in the result the then Government was justified in taking rigorous measures to prevent disastrous consequences; but that a condition of that sort should be perpetuated when we in Parliament are bragging about the virtues of the League of Nations and are singing of " Peace on eaith," and being made to swallow holus-bolus treaties of peace without a quorum in the House, I say that we ought to be exceedingly careful what we do if we wish to make the people of Canada believe that we are sincere and honest in our speech and in our actions. I believe that there is a good deal of misapprehension in regard to the Bill which is before us. As regards the Naturalization Act and the clause calling for ten years' residence after the termination of the war I had occasion to protest against that measure at the last session of Parliament when I said that it was shameful that we should have to enact such legislation, and the reply was that it was a universal act not applicable to Canada alone. 'I therefore accepted this explanation without further remarks. Now, however, I trust the Government will deem it its duty to have this measure changed to such an extent that men shall not be obliged to remain in Canada fourteen, thirteen, twelve and eleven years before they can be naturalized.
The statement has been made that in the past naturalization has been given too freely to some citizens of Canada through the mistakes of previous governments. This statement I do not challenge, but because mistakes have been made in the past by previous governments is no reason why this Government should go to the opposite extreme. I am going to endeavour to seek a motive in Clause 29, and I shall ascribe to that clause the best possible motive that can be conceived. If there is a reason at all in Clause 29 for disfranchising a British subject that reason lies in a naturalization act itself which requires, among other things, that the applicant for naturalization shall be of good character and shall possess an adequate knowledge of either English or French. Now, Sir, I can understand that it may be the desire of the Government to raise the standard of citizenship, and, owing to the operation of the law which made it possible for a woman to become a British subject by marriage or a son to become a British subject without naturalization, to see that such persons 
should possess the necessary qualifications, namely, good	character	and ability
in English or French. That can be the only motive behind this clause, unless there be the unworthy	motive that
we are seeking to elect ourselves once more by disfranchising as many people as possible. If that is the case, I would go a step further and say that we should disfranchise every one who voted against the Union Government and so make a sure thing of it. I believe, however, Mr. Speaker, that the real motive underlying Clause 29 is in fact to ascertain whether the man or woman affected has all the qualifications required under the Naturalization Act. But if this interpretation be correct, then it will be necessary to amend Clause 29 so as to make this motive apparent at least. Now, let us see what this clause says.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I hope the hon. member will not go too far in discussing the details of the measure which, of course, can be discussed only in committee.


Henry Arthur Mackie: I have not yet entered
into any details, Mr. Speaker, and I trust I may be permitted at least to broach* the general principle of the Bill, which is the question of enfranchising or disfranchising. Clause 29 does disfranchise, and I wish to call attention to this particular portion of the Act which reads, inter alia as follows:
-provided, however, that this subsection shall not apply to any person born on the continent of North America -nor to any person who in person applies to and obtains from any judge having jurisdiction in naturalization proceedings a certificate under the hand of such judge and the seal, if any, of his court, to the effect following:
The certificate is as follows:
This is to certify that from evidence submitted before me, I am satisfied that A.B.
of	in the province of	
(occupation)	is a person naturalized as a British subject by operation of law, who, but for such naturalization is qualified and would be entitled at the date of the issue of this certificate to be personally naturalized in Canada.
Now it says that if you have disfranchised a man or woman there must be a personal application for naturalization. Is Clause 29 the only procedure enacted? Can a person simply step into a court and say: I wish to be naturalized, having been disfranchised as the wife of so-and-so or the son of so-and-so? Is there any particular procedure provided as to how a person may place his or her claim before the court?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The hon. member is
certainly discussing the details of the Bill

which can only properly he discussed in committee. He is not discussing the principle of the Bill, to which I shall have to ask him to confine his remarks.
Mr. H. A. MACKIiE: I hope that I am not singled out in any way because the debate has been carried on on clause 29.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order; if the hon. gentleman feels aggrieved at the decision of the Chair he has his remedy. The last remark which he has made is entirely uncalled for.


Henry Arthur Mackie: Mr. Speaker, I bow to your ruling and I will endeavour to generalize more than I have, but I desire to call to your attention once more the fact that clause 29 has been discussed on the other side and on this side as well as the clause of the Naturalization Act.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: